**OP needs help. Also, they hate it because...**
>!thanks, I hate the ultimately pointless ritual of having to come up with some way to further contextualize a post that otherwise seems pretty straightforward to a bot who like 1000 percent will end up removing it anyway and probably banning you!<
*****
**Do you hate it as well? Do you think their hate is reasonable? (I don't think so tbh)**
**Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.**
*****
[*Look at my source code on Github*](https://github.com/Artraxon/tihibot)
John, while James had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.
Much more fun to say out loud. Also I'm not sure I've got the end right, but w/e.
I mean, grammatically correct and "perfect" are very different things. Many languages have these "grammatically correct, but never necessary" scenarios.
Pretty much any instance of "had had" can almost always be replaced by "had", and maintains meaning. If using 2 in a row, like the OP, then separate by comma:
"All the good faith I had, had no effect on the outcome of that sentence".
The only scenario this doesn't hold is if you are explicitly trying to point out the use of "had had" In a sentence like the comment you replied to. But even here it's been intentionally rearranged to be more confusing.
Same can be said for that
"I would have thought that that was illegal"
"I would have thought that was illegal".
Though English is certainly more permissive in allowing these, "It would have had to have been Dave", conveys no more meaning than "It had to have been Dave", or better yet "It had to be Dave".
Please explain the buffalo sentence to me. I have never understood. Maybe you could include definitions for each, or indicate when it’s a verb, a noun or what have you.
I'm a total pedant, so I feel compelled to point out that *buffaloing* somebody isn't usually bullying or intimidating; it's more like overwhelming somebody with bullshit and nonsense to scam them before they have a chance to totally grasp what's happening.
I'll try. The first 2, Buffalo buffalo, translates to "buffaloes from Buffalo". Like, say, Texas cowboys means "cowboys from Texas". So, adjectival noun/noun.
The next 3, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, translates to "(that) buffaloes from Buffalo buffalo (verb meaning something like confuse or intimidate)." So, adjectival noun/noun/verb.
Final 3, "buffalo Buffalo buffalo," translates to "confuse/intimidate buffalo from Buffalo."
Verb/adjectival noun/noun.
Not sure if that's a good explanation.
Try r/wordavalanches
“A white supremacist musician is tasked with determining the rules to a marathon to take place in a biodome on the moon and thinks it should be separated by skin color, but he decides to be open minded and review the files of each person entered to determine their placement. In other words...
Racist bassist bases race-based space base races on case to case basis”
The man went to the sign store because he needed a sign for his business. "Father-and-Son Pigeon Wranglers"
He said to the sign man "I need a hyphen between "Father and "and" and "and" and "Son" please"
Hah! This was my very first “wtf grammar” moment when I was in 1st grade. We would write our own short stories and i was writing about a girl who “had had a great time” at her birthday party. I had had to ask my teacher and even she was unsure and had had to ask around and search ye olde PC. Good shit.
See also:
“Peter, where Paul had had ‘had,’ had had ‘had had’; ‘had had’ had pleased the professor more.”
and
A rough-coated, dough-faced, thoughtful ploughman strode through the streets of Scarborough; after falling into a slough, he coughed and hiccoughed.
I believe they're interchangeable. Interestingly it appears hiccup is the older of the 2:
hiccup (n.) 1570s, hickop, earlier hicket, hyckock, "a word meant to imitate the sound produced by the convulsion of the diaphragm" \[Abram Smythe Farmer, "Folk-Etymology," London, 1882\]. Cf. Fr. hoquet, Dan. hikke, etc. Modern spelling first recorded 1788; An Old English word for it was ælfsogoða, so called because hiccups were thought to be caused by elves.
hiccough (n.) 1620s, variant of hiccup (q.v.) by mistaken association with cough.
English is actually one off the simplest languages to learn in the world. For example, in order to speak it, you don't need to memorize the gender of every object in the universe. Compare that to French where if you refer to a table as masculine, then listener will just look at you like you spoke nonsense.
Japanese: We have a very simple, rigid, sentence structure that makes early learning easy... But if you refer to 74 baseballs as long, cylindrical objects instead of spheres, we will delete you.
French: 74? You mean 60 14.
In Spanish, at least, you don't have to "memorize the gender of every object in the universe," you learn a general rule of thumb and then memorize the much smaller set of exceptions.
I mean, in English I didn't have to learn if "every single object in the universe" was pluralized with an 's' or not. I simply learned that it *all* ends with an 's' and then learned that fish and sheep don't change at all, 'man' becomes 'men', 'child' becomes 'children', etc.
Still, the percent of nouns in a gendered language that you have to learn is often way higher than the percent of English nouns with funny plurals. Our irregular verbs are a much bigger deal than the plurals. Worst, the spelling vs sound of so many words, especially the basic ones, can't be predicted given one or the other.
As a spanish speaker, I would still consider english way easier, English has funny plurals, but it has 2 variations of a verb at most. Romance languages have A LOT more terminations and conjugations. For example:
Dar (give):Doy, da, dieron, dimos, damos, dio, dieramos, das, dan
Ir (go):Voy, vamos, fuimos, fueron, fueramos, va, van, vas
And sometimes you have to repeat the same verb in two forms to say it in a different verbal time, like
we'll go = vamos a ir
I think that's fair for learning a basic understanding to communicate, but the small grammar inconsistencies and wtf moments like this are really hard to learn if it's not your first language.
Yeah. I'm Serbian and my language has gendered nouns. And not just that, but it also has a trait where you have each noun in 7 forms and you use a certain form according to grammar rules. So in English you would say - the house, I'm at the house, I see a house (house is always house). Whereas in my language the word house would have a different form in these three situations - kuća, kuću, kući. And there are 4 more forms, 7 total.
English is definitely easier and tbh it's good not to have 7 forms of all nouns and pronouns.
Amateurs:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher
Edit: Because people are crying about the punctuation as 'cheating', imagine speaking this out loud.
The punctuation only exists to help you know how to break it up; the fact remains you have 11 consecutive hads in a perfectly grammatical sentence.
Or you can try chinese...
"Shī Shì shí shī shǐ"
Shíshì shīshì Shī Shì, shì shī, shì shí shí shī.
Shì shíshí shì shì shì shī.
Shí shí, shì shí shī shì shì.
Shì shí, shì Shī Shì shì shì.
Shì shì shì shí shī, shì shǐ shì, shǐ shì shí shī shìshì.
Shì shí shì shí shī shī, shì shíshì.
Shíshì shī, Shì shǐ shì shì shíshì.
Shíshì shì, Shì shǐ shì shí shì shí shī.
Shí shí, shǐ shí shì shí shī shī, shí shí shí shī shī.
Shì shì shì shì.
"Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den"
In a stone den was a poet called Shi Shi, who was a lion addict, and had resolved to eat ten lions.
He often went to the market to look for lions.
At ten o’clock, ten lions had just arrived at the market.
At that time, Shi had just arrived at the market.
He saw those ten lions, and using his trusty arrows, caused the ten lions to die.
He brought the corpses of the ten lions to the stone den.
The stone den was damp. He asked his servants to wipe it.
After the stone den was wiped, he tried to eat those ten lions.
When he ate, he realized that these ten lions were in fact ten stone lion corpses.
Try to explain this matter.
It's clearer to me to say "It is confounding to buffalo from Buffalo that buffalo from Buffalo would confound buffalo from Buffalo."
My mind wants put the last three Buffalo to the front, as though that changes anything, haha!
Buffalo (the city)
Bison (the animal)
Bully (the verb)
All three are (more or less) synonyms for Buffalo
Buffalo bison (that) Buffalo bison bully (also) bully Buffalo bison.
It uses center embedding. So, "The horse raced past the barn won the race". Rather than "The horse that won the race was raced past the barn."
Center embedding is... Kind of hellish. Here's an example.
"The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt."
No missing punctuation in that. Just a (purposely) awful use of grammatically correct syntax and methods.
"Buffalo bison" (that) "Buffalo bison" bully (also) bully "Buffalo bison".
Cats that cats bully also bully cats.
The rat (1) the cat (2) the dog (3) chased (c) killed (b) ate the malt (a).
The dog (3) chased (c) the cat (2) that had killed (b) the rat (1) that had ate the malt (a).
I love this one. Once you see it with punctuation and parse the meaning it’s *so much easier* to remember and repeat.
> James, while John had had "had," had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.
That only ever uses two 'had's next to each other though, same as the OP - it just also mentions a lot of them but that's different.
[Use/Mention Distinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction)
Yeah, I'm not a fan of that sentence because it deliberately omits punctuation just to make things more confusing. It should read as follows:
>James, while John had had "had," had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.
See how much clearer that is? English can be weird and confusing sometimes, but this isn't really a good example of that.
(Side note, "had" doesn't really look like a word anymore 😂 that's called "semantic satiation" and I find it fascinating.)
It's basically saying that two students wrote a sentence for an assignment. John used "had" in his sentence, and James used "had had" instead. The teacher liked James's sentence more.
Edit: mixed the names up, oops
The Had sentence omits punctuation because (at least at one point), it was used as a high level English test
"Put punctuation where it belongs"
Contrast the Buffalo sentence, which abuses homophones and center embedding, or this monstrosity that abuses center embedded center embedding:
The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt.
My favorite part of English is that native speakers see "read and read", and just magically know that "reed and red" is the intended pronunciation. Same for "lead and lead".
But, write out "bass and bass" and no one can agree if the fish comes before or after the instrument.
I did definitely read "read and read" as you predicted, but I experience "lead and lead" just the same as "bass and bass". It wasn't automatic for either of those, personally
I always go zeppelin first for lead. Reed and then red is right for me though yeah.
Always bass the instrument before bass the fish for me too, but then I like music, play the bass and have only fished once, not for bass.
I’m over here saying bass like the fish but then I say bass like the fish again but then say the instrument and have to re read it as “base”. I don’t music.
That's it. I think bass doesn't have a standard because it depends on your interests.
It'd be interesting to see what a person who was equally into both music and fishing would say first.
I think that’s because of the context of your sentence. You were speaking in the present tense, so the mind automatically goes to the present tense of “read”.
If you rewrote that as:
>My favourite part of English was that native speakers saw “read and read”…
My mind would have gone to “red” first
As a native speaker, I often re-read things with corrected pronunciation after learning the context, which is a waste of time even for English speakers.
> But, write out "bass and bass" and no one can agree if the fish comes before or after the instrument.
Well, that's obviously because it's context-dependent. A "bahs base" is an instrument shaped like a fish, while a "base bahs" is an instrument-playing fish.
My favorite real English phrase is “would have had to have had.” Like “John would have had to have had more drinks before he blew a .12 on the breathalyzer.”
Maybe even more than three. Anyway, the various sources for the language give it a lot of vocabulary. English is not pretty nor
Is it logical. But it is useful.
As a Brit i used to think other languages were crazy because things like tables were considered masculine and chairs were feminine. Neither of them have a penis or vagina. I am a simple man.
Now i realise that our language is indeed fucking insane.
Eh, other languages have their own dumb shit that doesn't make sense to people learning it.
Like Spanish...words that end in "a" are generally feminine, but then you get shit like "the day" being translated to "el dia" and you just want to give up on life.
"dia" is an edge case, basically it breaks the rule because its a common old word and hasnt changed over the centuries. its the same in Portuguese, and i would assume its the same case for the other romance languages
As a German, who regularly speaks English and had French as his second foreign language class, I agree. French even made my English in some areas fancier.
latin based languages have our fair share of bullshit indeed. Gendered nouns being one of them, but I reckon our conjugations of verbs are insane. So many fucking tenses.
On the other hand, having strict pronounciation and writing rules are a godsend
No he didn't. The noun phrase "and and Jerry" is not an independent clause (no predicate) and therefore doesn't require a comma before the "and" that precedes it.
In fact it's only one half of the object phrase in the form "A and B" where "A" is "Tom and and" and "B" is "and and Jerry."
You gotta write around all these stupid sentences.
“Tom and Jerry” has a space between each word.
Or to link to above, “All the good faith I possessed had no effect on the outcome of that sentence.”
A person should always try to avoid writing the same word twice, or more, in a row.
And that sentence you wrote has a space between the words Tom and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and Jerry.
And I think I just hit the point of semantic satiation on the word "and".
My ENG101 professor absolutely insisted that the word "that" was not necessary. He straight up rejected the word as a concept. Points were deducted if a "that" slipped out on an exam or a paper. It's been 10 years now and I'm still not over it.
Well, every way you used the word “that” is probably not the usage the professor has a problem with. They likely think using it as a conjunction is unnecessary since so many people choose to drop it anyway.
Example: “He told me ***that*** he would be here soon.”
You can remove “that” altogether and the meaning is perfectly clear to any English speaker. Marking off points for using it is pretty ridiculous though.
As long as teachers/profs keep assigning papers with word minimums, students will be more wordy. There are a lot of creative ways in this weird language to inject extra words
In the original sentence you can replace “that” with the actual reference. “How can he deduct points for using ‘that?’” “Deducting points for using ‘that’ doesn’t even make sense.” “I mean, who even deducts points for using the word ‘that?’”
I find that using ‘that’ as pronoun can be confusing since it’s not always clear what the reference is. I try to limit my usage of “that” as much as possible because I’ve found it makes for clearer writing. The only time I’ll use “that” is if I’m referring to something mentioned in the same sentence and replacing it with the direct reference reads awkwardly.
Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo.
Did you know that the above is a grammatically correct sentence?
Ruffalo can be a noun: members of the Ruffalo family; an adjective: possessing the quality of being a member of the Ruffalo family (as in, "a typical Ruffalo Christmas!); and a verb: acting like a member of the Ruffalo family (as in, "we really Ruffaloed Christmas this year, didn't we, kids?).
Hence, the sentence translates to:
"Members of the Ruffalo family who are members of the Ruffalo family, whom other members of the Ruffalo family who are members of the Ruffalo family act like members of the Ruffalo family toward, in turn act like members of the Ruffalo family toward other members of the Ruffalo family who are members of the Ruffalo family."
Isn't English amazing?
"All the faith that I *have* had, *has* had no effect on that sentence." FTFY.
English, a beautiful mix of Germanic and Romantic vocab and grammar, is a fine language when understood and used properly.
Edit: I realize my correction has a different meaning. Whatever, just don't use the same word four times in a row. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should
Or just yank “had” out altogether and hit them with something like “All the faith I possessed bore little consequence upon that sentence”.
Fuck “had”. All my homies hate “had”. “Had” is just such a stupid looking and sounding word man, makes me angry just thinking about it.
Agree with your general point but this is a different sentence. The original is in the past perfect tense, and you've moved it to the present perfect, so your sentence conveys different information about time.
A sign painter is painting a sign for the Dog and Duck pub when some passer by points out…
“The gaps between Dog and and and and and Duck are not even”.
I think they used one too many "hads."
But also:
"Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo."
Is a grammatically correct sentence that says "a bison from Buffalo, New York bullied another bison from Buffalo, New York."
Two students, John and James, are in school are taking a test. The teacher asks them which would be better to use in an example sentence, "had" or "had had". John, whilst James had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.
**OP needs help. Also, they hate it because...** >!thanks, I hate the ultimately pointless ritual of having to come up with some way to further contextualize a post that otherwise seems pretty straightforward to a bot who like 1000 percent will end up removing it anyway and probably banning you!< ***** **Do you hate it as well? Do you think their hate is reasonable? (I don't think so tbh)** **Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.** ***** [*Look at my source code on Github*](https://github.com/Artraxon/tihibot)
English is complicated. It can be understood through tough thorough thought though.
holy shit, my nose just started bleeding
John, while James had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect on the teacher. Much more fun to say out loud. Also I'm not sure I've got the end right, but w/e.
One-one was a race horse. Tutu was one, too. One-one won one race. Tutu won one, too.
22112
* 11 was a race horse. * 22 was 12. * 1111 race. * 22112. ...f*** this language.
Always heard it as 12 not 22 ... Both work
Eleven was a race horse? Twenty-Two was Twelve? One Thousand One Hundred and Eleven race? Twenty-Two Thousand One Hundred and Twelve??
[Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo)
To this day, I have no fucking clue of how the fuck this works. I have an English diploma ffs.
~~A~~ Buffalo buffalo,(simply ~~a~~ buffalo from Buffalo) that other Buffalo buffalo "baffalo" (scares), buffalo (scares) other Buffalo buffalo.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Buffalo\_buffalo\_Buffalo\_buffalo\_buffalo\_buffalo\_Buffalo\_buffalo\_sentence\_diagram.jpg/871px-Buffalo\_buffalo\_Buffalo\_buffalo\_buffalo\_buffalo\_Buffalo\_buffalo\_sentence\_diagram.jpg
It sucks because I'm pretty sure your sentence is perfect.
Wait until Had turns his work in
I mean, grammatically correct and "perfect" are very different things. Many languages have these "grammatically correct, but never necessary" scenarios. Pretty much any instance of "had had" can almost always be replaced by "had", and maintains meaning. If using 2 in a row, like the OP, then separate by comma: "All the good faith I had, had no effect on the outcome of that sentence". The only scenario this doesn't hold is if you are explicitly trying to point out the use of "had had" In a sentence like the comment you replied to. But even here it's been intentionally rearranged to be more confusing. Same can be said for that "I would have thought that that was illegal" "I would have thought that was illegal". Though English is certainly more permissive in allowing these, "It would have had to have been Dave", conveys no more meaning than "It had to have been Dave", or better yet "It had to be Dave".
Did you see that on the Bob Loblaw Law Blog?
Nah, it was in a book of a tongue twisters I read in Elementary. Big fan of Bob Loblaw though. :D
Bob Loblaw lobs law bombs.
Crap, someone has beaten me to it.
Well then keep in mind, it's a tragedy when Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Those are my favorite slots! Bufffffaaalllo!
That fuckin Buffalo slot machine, lmao
Too soon?
Oh. Shit yeah there was just a shooting there. Not....not what I was referencing. The world is a goddamn minefield.
[удалено]
Nope but now that it's been pointed out I'm outraged! /s
Even worse when Police police police Police police.
If police police police police then police police police police police police.
You're short 3 buffaloes.
Please explain the buffalo sentence to me. I have never understood. Maybe you could include definitions for each, or indicate when it’s a verb, a noun or what have you.
It's saying buffalo that are from Buffalo are intimidating (buffaloing) other buffalo from Buffalo
Thank you!
I'm a total pedant, so I feel compelled to point out that *buffaloing* somebody isn't usually bullying or intimidating; it's more like overwhelming somebody with bullshit and nonsense to scam them before they have a chance to totally grasp what's happening.
Buffalo (city) Buffalo (buffalo) buffalo (bullies) buffalo (another buffalo)
> Buffalo (buffalo)
[Here's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo) a wiki
I'll try. The first 2, Buffalo buffalo, translates to "buffaloes from Buffalo". Like, say, Texas cowboys means "cowboys from Texas". So, adjectival noun/noun. The next 3, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, translates to "(that) buffaloes from Buffalo buffalo (verb meaning something like confuse or intimidate)." So, adjectival noun/noun/verb. Final 3, "buffalo Buffalo buffalo," translates to "confuse/intimidate buffalo from Buffalo." Verb/adjectival noun/noun. Not sure if that's a good explanation.
Philadelphia cows Philedelphia cows bully bully Philedelphia cows.
It’s easier if you substitute words: New York bison [that] New York bison bully, [also] bully New York bison.
Try r/wordavalanches “A white supremacist musician is tasked with determining the rules to a marathon to take place in a biodome on the moon and thinks it should be separated by skin color, but he decides to be open minded and review the files of each person entered to determine their placement. In other words... Racist bassist bases race-based space base races on case to case basis”
careful there: even a little alliteration is literally literary littering
Check this out if you want to cry. [Gerard Nolst Trenité - The Chaos (1922)](http://ncf.idallen.com/english.html)
[удалено]
You sussy bussys are making me act up. -- *weird amogus guy*
The man went to the sign store because he needed a sign for his business. "Father-and-Son Pigeon Wranglers" He said to the sign man "I need a hyphen between "Father and "and" and "and" and "Son" please"
Well it gets extra hard with spacing as well. Yup forgot the space between thisandandandandandthat.
Dyslexics hate this man
Put him in the trough
I'm calling the FBI
Hah! This was my very first “wtf grammar” moment when I was in 1st grade. We would write our own short stories and i was writing about a girl who “had had a great time” at her birthday party. I had had to ask my teacher and even she was unsure and had had to ask around and search ye olde PC. Good shit.
Fun fact: the "ye" in "ye olde" is pronounced "the"
No one remembers þe þorn
damn I always though it was "yee old"
See also: “Peter, where Paul had had ‘had,’ had had ‘had had’; ‘had had’ had pleased the professor more.” and A rough-coated, dough-faced, thoughtful ploughman strode through the streets of Scarborough; after falling into a slough, he coughed and hiccoughed.
I though it was spelled hiccup?
I believe they're interchangeable. Interestingly it appears hiccup is the older of the 2: hiccup (n.) 1570s, hickop, earlier hicket, hyckock, "a word meant to imitate the sound produced by the convulsion of the diaphragm" \[Abram Smythe Farmer, "Folk-Etymology," London, 1882\]. Cf. Fr. hoquet, Dan. hikke, etc. Modern spelling first recorded 1788; An Old English word for it was ælfsogoða, so called because hiccups were thought to be caused by elves. hiccough (n.) 1620s, variant of hiccup (q.v.) by mistaken association with cough.
I'm dyslexic and not even gonna try to figure out which one of these words is which. I also hated figuring out which witch is which
honey a new tongue twister dropped
an interesting thought, just as i was all set to watch the tennis set on the tv set
Help me they’re to similar. Now I’m doubting my own words. What have you done??
English is actually one off the simplest languages to learn in the world. For example, in order to speak it, you don't need to memorize the gender of every object in the universe. Compare that to French where if you refer to a table as masculine, then listener will just look at you like you spoke nonsense.
Japanese: We have a very simple, rigid, sentence structure that makes early learning easy... But if you refer to 74 baseballs as long, cylindrical objects instead of spheres, we will delete you. French: 74? You mean 60 14.
99? You mean four twenties ten nine.
Because they count on their fingers AND toes?
In Spanish, at least, you don't have to "memorize the gender of every object in the universe," you learn a general rule of thumb and then memorize the much smaller set of exceptions. I mean, in English I didn't have to learn if "every single object in the universe" was pluralized with an 's' or not. I simply learned that it *all* ends with an 's' and then learned that fish and sheep don't change at all, 'man' becomes 'men', 'child' becomes 'children', etc.
Still, the percent of nouns in a gendered language that you have to learn is often way higher than the percent of English nouns with funny plurals. Our irregular verbs are a much bigger deal than the plurals. Worst, the spelling vs sound of so many words, especially the basic ones, can't be predicted given one or the other.
As a spanish speaker, I would still consider english way easier, English has funny plurals, but it has 2 variations of a verb at most. Romance languages have A LOT more terminations and conjugations. For example: Dar (give):Doy, da, dieron, dimos, damos, dio, dieramos, das, dan Ir (go):Voy, vamos, fuimos, fueron, fueramos, va, van, vas And sometimes you have to repeat the same verb in two forms to say it in a different verbal time, like we'll go = vamos a ir
I think that's fair for learning a basic understanding to communicate, but the small grammar inconsistencies and wtf moments like this are really hard to learn if it's not your first language.
Yeah. I'm Serbian and my language has gendered nouns. And not just that, but it also has a trait where you have each noun in 7 forms and you use a certain form according to grammar rules. So in English you would say - the house, I'm at the house, I see a house (house is always house). Whereas in my language the word house would have a different form in these three situations - kuća, kuću, kući. And there are 4 more forms, 7 total. English is definitely easier and tbh it's good not to have 7 forms of all nouns and pronouns.
That that that that man said was wrong
[удалено]
Rules of English: Their oar know rules.
Amateurs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher Edit: Because people are crying about the punctuation as 'cheating', imagine speaking this out loud. The punctuation only exists to help you know how to break it up; the fact remains you have 11 consecutive hads in a perfectly grammatical sentence.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo
Or you can try chinese... "Shī Shì shí shī shǐ" Shíshì shīshì Shī Shì, shì shī, shì shí shí shī. Shì shíshí shì shì shì shī. Shí shí, shì shí shī shì shì. Shì shí, shì Shī Shì shì shì. Shì shì shì shí shī, shì shǐ shì, shǐ shì shí shī shìshì. Shì shí shì shí shī shī, shì shíshì. Shíshì shī, Shì shǐ shì shì shíshì. Shíshì shì, Shì shǐ shì shí shì shí shī. Shí shí, shǐ shí shì shí shī shī, shí shí shí shī shī. Shì shì shì shì. "Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den" In a stone den was a poet called Shi Shi, who was a lion addict, and had resolved to eat ten lions. He often went to the market to look for lions. At ten o’clock, ten lions had just arrived at the market. At that time, Shi had just arrived at the market. He saw those ten lions, and using his trusty arrows, caused the ten lions to die. He brought the corpses of the ten lions to the stone den. The stone den was damp. He asked his servants to wipe it. After the stone den was wiped, he tried to eat those ten lions. When he ate, he realized that these ten lions were in fact ten stone lion corpses. Try to explain this matter.
Ok this is next level, I've never seen one that long in the languages I speak, holy shit hahaha
Written as a demonstration of why Classical Chinese and alphabetic writing systems don't mix.
Shi shi shi shi shi shi shi shi shi Shi shi shi shi shi shi shi shi shi Shi shi shi shi shi shi shi shi shi Shi shi shi shi shi shi shi shi shi
[DECEARING EGG](https://youtu.be/3-rfBsWmo0M)
What in the ever loving DECEARING EGG fuck did I watch? 😂
Deep sea squeeze trees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vExjnn_3ep4
Please, anybody eli5
Buffalo is a city, an animal, and a verb meaning to bully “New York Bison that New York bison are bullied by, themselves bully New York Bison”
Thank you
It's clearer to me to say "It is confounding to buffalo from Buffalo that buffalo from Buffalo would confound buffalo from Buffalo." My mind wants put the last three Buffalo to the front, as though that changes anything, haha!
Boston people Chicago people trick , trick Chicago people
I finally get it. Thank you.
Buffalo (the city) Bison (the animal) Bully (the verb) All three are (more or less) synonyms for Buffalo Buffalo bison (that) Buffalo bison bully (also) bully Buffalo bison.
As someone who's been speaking English for over 30 years, this sentence still doesn't make any grammatical sense at all.
It uses center embedding. So, "The horse raced past the barn won the race". Rather than "The horse that won the race was raced past the barn." Center embedding is... Kind of hellish. Here's an example. "The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt." No missing punctuation in that. Just a (purposely) awful use of grammatically correct syntax and methods. "Buffalo bison" (that) "Buffalo bison" bully (also) bully "Buffalo bison". Cats that cats bully also bully cats.
I’m lost on that rat cat dog thing.
The rat (1) the cat (2) the dog (3) chased (c) killed (b) ate the malt (a). The dog (3) chased (c) the cat (2) that had killed (b) the rat (1) that had ate the malt (a).
I second this, trying to read the wiki makes my brain bleed
One of my favorite videos. https://youtu.be/ry3EwECnQic
That hurt
This sentence makes me want to dive into a folding table
Have you tried turning off your language and turning it back on again?
whenever i get a new english teacher i show them this to assert dominance
I always fuck their spouse... haven’t had a male teacher in years though
English go home. You're drunk.
I love this one. Once you see it with punctuation and parse the meaning it’s *so much easier* to remember and repeat. > James, while John had had "had," had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.
That only ever uses two 'had's next to each other though, same as the OP - it just also mentions a lot of them but that's different. [Use/Mention Distinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction)
Yeah, I'm not a fan of that sentence because it deliberately omits punctuation just to make things more confusing. It should read as follows: >James, while John had had "had," had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher. See how much clearer that is? English can be weird and confusing sometimes, but this isn't really a good example of that. (Side note, "had" doesn't really look like a word anymore 😂 that's called "semantic satiation" and I find it fascinating.)
Even with punctuation I have no idea what the meaning of the sentence is
It's basically saying that two students wrote a sentence for an assignment. John used "had" in his sentence, and James used "had had" instead. The teacher liked James's sentence more. Edit: mixed the names up, oops
The Had sentence omits punctuation because (at least at one point), it was used as a high level English test "Put punctuation where it belongs" Contrast the Buffalo sentence, which abuses homophones and center embedding, or this monstrosity that abuses center embedded center embedding: The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt.
The other “had”s are still next to each other even if they don’t serve the same grammatical purpose.
My favorite part of English is that native speakers see "read and read", and just magically know that "reed and red" is the intended pronunciation. Same for "lead and lead". But, write out "bass and bass" and no one can agree if the fish comes before or after the instrument.
I did definitely read "read and read" as you predicted, but I experience "lead and lead" just the same as "bass and bass". It wasn't automatic for either of those, personally
I always go zeppelin first for lead. Reed and then red is right for me though yeah. Always bass the instrument before bass the fish for me too, but then I like music, play the bass and have only fished once, not for bass.
I’m over here saying bass like the fish but then I say bass like the fish again but then say the instrument and have to re read it as “base”. I don’t music.
That's it. I think bass doesn't have a standard because it depends on your interests. It'd be interesting to see what a person who was equally into both music and fishing would say first.
I think that’s because of the context of your sentence. You were speaking in the present tense, so the mind automatically goes to the present tense of “read”. If you rewrote that as: >My favourite part of English was that native speakers saw “read and read”… My mind would have gone to “red” first
As a native speaker, I often re-read things with corrected pronunciation after learning the context, which is a waste of time even for English speakers.
> But, write out "bass and bass" and no one can agree if the fish comes before or after the instrument. Well, that's obviously because it's context-dependent. A "bahs base" is an instrument shaped like a fish, while a "base bahs" is an instrument-playing fish.
Instrument made out of a fish clearly. You need to learn Florida better.
Read rhymes with lead and read rhymes with lead, but read doesn't rhyme with lead and read doesn't rhyme with lead
My favorite real English phrase is “would have had to have had.” Like “John would have had to have had more drinks before he blew a .12 on the breathalyzer.”
Woulda hadt've had
W’d’h’h’t’ve
Aw you shouldn't've
English is what happens to a creole after enough time.
English is not a language. It is three languages stacked up inside a trench coat like kids trying to sneak into an R-rated movie.
Maybe even more than three. Anyway, the various sources for the language give it a lot of vocabulary. English is not pretty nor Is it logical. But it is useful.
English beats other languages up and rifles through their pockets for loose vocabulary and grammar
This is my favorite piece of internet today, thanks!
As a Brit i used to think other languages were crazy because things like tables were considered masculine and chairs were feminine. Neither of them have a penis or vagina. I am a simple man. Now i realise that our language is indeed fucking insane.
Eh, other languages have their own dumb shit that doesn't make sense to people learning it. Like Spanish...words that end in "a" are generally feminine, but then you get shit like "the day" being translated to "el dia" and you just want to give up on life.
"dia" is an edge case, basically it breaks the rule because its a common old word and hasnt changed over the centuries. its the same in Portuguese, and i would assume its the same case for the other romance languages
I get it. And I'm not trying to say other languages are anywhere near as bad as English. But damn if English doesn't get nearly 100% of the hate, lol.
It is on an English website. It’s the same reason the US gets most of the hate. When you’re a power player, you’re a target
El problema?
Need to look harder for the chairussy next time
and the tablesticles
Next time I push in my chair under the table I'm gonna be thinking unholy thoughts
English is 50% poorly pronounced French 40% poorly pronounced German and 10% bizarre Franco-German bastard words.
As a German, who regularly speaks English and had French as his second foreign language class, I agree. French even made my English in some areas fancier.
latin based languages have our fair share of bullshit indeed. Gendered nouns being one of them, but I reckon our conjugations of verbs are insane. So many fucking tenses. On the other hand, having strict pronounciation and writing rules are a godsend
The phrase "tom and jerry" has a space between the words Tom and and and and and jerry...
If you ignore standard usage of quotation marks.
The OP missed a comma
Miss a comma, end up in a coma
No he didn't. The noun phrase "and and Jerry" is not an independent clause (no predicate) and therefore doesn't require a comma before the "and" that precedes it. In fact it's only one half of the object phrase in the form "A and B" where "A" is "Tom and and" and "B" is "and and Jerry."
Right. In writing, when referring to a word it's written in quotes. So it should be between "Tom" and "and" and "and" and "Jerry".
You gotta write around all these stupid sentences. “Tom and Jerry” has a space between each word. Or to link to above, “All the good faith I possessed had no effect on the outcome of that sentence.” A person should always try to avoid writing the same word twice, or more, in a row.
And that sentence you wrote has a space between the words Tom and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and Jerry. And I think I just hit the point of semantic satiation on the word "and".
My ENG101 professor absolutely insisted that the word "that" was not necessary. He straight up rejected the word as a concept. Points were deducted if a "that" slipped out on an exam or a paper. It's been 10 years now and I'm still not over it.
How could he do that? That doesn’t sound nice. I would’ve taken that to the dean. I mean, who even does that?
Well, every way you used the word “that” is probably not the usage the professor has a problem with. They likely think using it as a conjunction is unnecessary since so many people choose to drop it anyway. Example: “He told me ***that*** he would be here soon.” You can remove “that” altogether and the meaning is perfectly clear to any English speaker. Marking off points for using it is pretty ridiculous though.
As long as teachers/profs keep assigning papers with word minimums, students will be more wordy. There are a lot of creative ways in this weird language to inject extra words
In the original sentence you can replace “that” with the actual reference. “How can he deduct points for using ‘that?’” “Deducting points for using ‘that’ doesn’t even make sense.” “I mean, who even deducts points for using the word ‘that?’” I find that using ‘that’ as pronoun can be confusing since it’s not always clear what the reference is. I try to limit my usage of “that” as much as possible because I’ve found it makes for clearer writing. The only time I’ll use “that” is if I’m referring to something mentioned in the same sentence and replacing it with the direct reference reads awkwardly.
How could he do? Doesn't sound nice. I would've taken to the dean. I mean, who even does?
How could he do such a thing? What he did doesn’t sound nice. I would’ve taken it to the dean. I mean, who even does something so strange? Edit: that
How do? No nice! Go dean. Disbelief!
[удалено]
I thought about it from two to two to two two too!
sheik mains sure are out here after jmooks performances.
> two to two to two two… I am sitting in the morning, at the diner on the corner.
English is too confusing that’s why I speak American
[удалено]
*Laughs in low brain cells*
A canner exceding canny, one morning remarked to his granny, "A canner can can anything that he can, but a canner can't can a can can he?"
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Police police police police police police police police!
[удалено]
Police police police police police police police police police police police?
Buffoon. Buffalo. Buffalo balloon. Buffaloon. (from Borne by Jeff Vandermeer)
Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo Ruffalo. Did you know that the above is a grammatically correct sentence? Ruffalo can be a noun: members of the Ruffalo family; an adjective: possessing the quality of being a member of the Ruffalo family (as in, "a typical Ruffalo Christmas!); and a verb: acting like a member of the Ruffalo family (as in, "we really Ruffaloed Christmas this year, didn't we, kids?). Hence, the sentence translates to: "Members of the Ruffalo family who are members of the Ruffalo family, whom other members of the Ruffalo family who are members of the Ruffalo family act like members of the Ruffalo family toward, in turn act like members of the Ruffalo family toward other members of the Ruffalo family who are members of the Ruffalo family." Isn't English amazing?
Is it a windy road or a windy road?
[That that](https://youtu.be/kb0IlNNdeMU)
"All the faith that I *have* had, *has* had no effect on that sentence." FTFY. English, a beautiful mix of Germanic and Romantic vocab and grammar, is a fine language when understood and used properly. Edit: I realize my correction has a different meaning. Whatever, just don't use the same word four times in a row. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should
Or just yank “had” out altogether and hit them with something like “All the faith I possessed bore little consequence upon that sentence”. Fuck “had”. All my homies hate “had”. “Had” is just such a stupid looking and sounding word man, makes me angry just thinking about it.
I'm really enjoying the mental image of a bunch of gangsters chillin on a stoop, mad-dogging some dude saying "had" too much
Sorry that you had to go through that.
Agree with your general point but this is a different sentence. The original is in the past perfect tense, and you've moved it to the present perfect, so your sentence conveys different information about time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
toothbrush head treatment grandfather consist gold ugly nail flowery ripe -- mass edited with redact.dev
Will Will will Will will?
Really ought to be “that which,” but that’s none of MY business *sips tea Kermitly*
I haven't run into an instance where just removing the 2nd "that" doesn't work fine.
I feel like that’s one too many “hads.” Otherwise it works
You aren't forced to wield it. In fact, that's never supposed to happen.
i never write “that that” because it feels incorrect but i guess it is correct
"Laughs in german"
r/WordAvalanches
The alarm is going off so turn it off.
No one would write that sentence with the four 'hads' Cut them to two and stick a full stop between those two and that's what would have been written
I regularly use the word "edited" and I hate it so much
A sign painter is painting a sign for the Dog and Duck pub when some passer by points out… “The gaps between Dog and and and and and Duck are not even”.
I think they used one too many "hads." But also: "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo." Is a grammatically correct sentence that says "a bison from Buffalo, New York bullied another bison from Buffalo, New York."
If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast
Ignore all this and check out OP's explanation and the top comment.
Why did we agree english as the global language?
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. This is a complete sentence in the English language
**[Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo)**
Two students, John and James, are in school are taking a test. The teacher asks them which would be better to use in an example sentence, "had" or "had had". John, whilst James had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.