Re: Have Had, Had Have (Was Re: Posting limits)

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:44:19 EDT, David Peterson <thatbluecat@...> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
> Poster:       David Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...>
> Subject:      Re: Have Had, Had Have (Was Re: Posting limits)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --part1_158.39903a8e.2e248a63_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> yonjuuni@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>
> <<In the example given by David, he wrote "I would've had to've had
> eaten", using the phrase "[ha]ve had eaten".
>
> To me, that just sounds bizarre, and I don't *think* I've ever heard it
> before, though I may have heard it and just thought it was an error.>>
>
> I know I've heard it from more people than just myself.
>
It sounds perfectly fine and passable as a construction. Just a touch
strange, but not so much that i'd argue against it. I'm sure i've
heard people use it also.

--
Something gets lost when you translate,
It's hard to keep straight, perspective is everything

- Invisible ink - Aimee Mann -