English as she is spoke.
-
Yep. And it's possible to have even more "hads" in a sentence. :)
There is water at the bottom of the ocean. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
Many many years ago I came across the following, the task being to punctuate it correctly: John where James had had had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval Eleven hads and yes it DOES make sense. I don't know if there's a way of manipulating a longer string of "had"s but it must be pretty gruesome....! Answer (scroll down to view:) John, where James had had "had" had had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.
-
You are of course right in that gotten has dropped out of English usage by the English. However, I do take exception with your definition of the word "pure". Given that English is derived from German, Dutch, French, Latin, Celtic, Indian, Chinese and the languages of just about every other people with whom we have had contact (Including the Americans), English (In all its forms) is about as "pure" as very gritty mud! You never now, we might get around to using gotten again. Keith
-
John and Jane wrote a sentence each; John wrote "my cat had its dinner"; Jane wrote "my cat had had its dinner". So, Jane, where John had had "had", had had "had had". Tough, I thought, though thorough and not rough, I coughed. There are plenty more. Modern English has its roots in many other cultures, largely as a result of the English/British penchant (from the French) for exploring the world. Also the reason why it is spoken so widely; not forgetting the fact that the British are notoriously bad at learning other languages.
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
not forgetting the fact that the British are notoriously bad at learning other languages.
I don't think it's a case of being bad at learning other languages; I think it's more a case of WHICH one do we learn, there's that many!
I'm too lazy to Google it for you.
-
I know it's in the nature of all languages to contain difficult phrasing that's hard to explain but I recently came across the use of "had had". I used it during the day sometime and it puzzled me why and when I mentioned it to my wife she also said she'd used it when writing to a medical case file. Her use described a patient "she had had an injection..." Why "she had had an..." and not "she had an injection..." Both forms, I think are correct, but how would you try to explain "had had" to someone learning english? It's almost like words ending in -ough. Through is "-oo", bough is "-ow", thorough is "-urrer", rough is "-uff", cough is "-off", dough is "-o". To quote: "Beware of beard, a terrible word, it looks like heard, but sounds like weird." I'm still surprised that english is almost the universally dominant language in the world but gaw'd 'elp those poor souls that try to learn it. :)
PHS241 wrote:
Both forms, I think are correct
Yes, but they mean different things.
PHS241 wrote:
but how would you try to explain "had had" to someone learning english?
Like this: "had" refers to a specific time in the past. (e.g. She had an injection on January 3rd.) "had had" refers to an unspecified time BEFORE a specific time in the past. (e.g. By January 3rd, she already had had an injection.)
-
And your point is? The American dictionary that you quote confirms that we can no longer claim much of what we owned 300 years ago. That part of the American continent now called the United States of America being a case in point! Keith
-
My point was clear, the poster said "gotten" was not a word, the dictionary says it is. Period.
At no point in my post did I state that "gotten" is not a word(Full stop) It is a word(Full stop) It is an American English word(Comma) not an English English word(Full stop) It used to be an English English word (hyphen) 300 years ago(Full stop) It would be interesting to learn if the word form appeared in the first English dictionaries(Comma) which were produced for the first time at about that time(Full stop) Pedants rule OK(Exclamation mark)
-
I've always thought that the second 'had' refers to some action; in your example, "she had received an injection...". Other words (in other contexts) could be 'gotten', 'experienced', 'undergone', etc.
Best wishes, Hans
Great explanation. Simple. I knew it made sense and I was trying to verbalize it but I just couldn't write an answer that wouldn't confuse him further.
-
Hans - This thread is "English as she is spoke" NOT "American as she is spoke". No such word as "gotten" in English. Controversial or what :-D ? Keith
There's no such language as "American"--it is a dialect of English. So, therefore, "gotten", though crude, is "English". ;)
-
Great explanation. Simple. I knew it made sense and I was trying to verbalize it but I just couldn't write an answer that wouldn't confuse him further.
-
My point was clear, the poster said "gotten" was not a word, the dictionary says it is. Period.
So, you have a stick up your @$$, or rather, arse, because someone used gotten in a sentence? That isn't even what he was talking about. He was talking about "had had". Go sip some tea. Pansy.
-
There's no such language as "American"--it is a dialect of English. So, therefore, "gotten", though crude, is "English". ;)
-
At no point in my post did I state that "gotten" is not a word(Full stop) It is a word(Full stop) It is an American English word(Comma) not an English English word(Full stop) It used to be an English English word (hyphen) 300 years ago(Full stop) It would be interesting to learn if the word form appeared in the first English dictionaries(Comma) which were produced for the first time at about that time(Full stop) Pedants rule OK(Exclamation mark)