You can pretty much always reword the sentence to avoid this. It's kind of always just bad grammar tbh.
"He wanted to make sure that that window had been closed."
"He wanted to ensure that window had been closed."
You can pretty much always reword the sentence to avoid this. It's kind of always just bad grammar tbh.
"He wanted to make sure that that window had been closed."
"He wanted to ensure that window had been closed."
The Chinese have an entire story with seemingly one word that varies only by how it is pronounced:
All of the good faith that I had had had had no effect on the outcome that that sentence had had
"Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo" is a grammatically correct sentence.
No it's not, because you didn't capitalize any of the 'Buffalo' to write it correctly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo
No punctuation.
Norwegian
Er det det det er? Is that what it is?
Det er det det er That is what it is
All languages united, fucked up
They're actually different parts of speech, practically different words, that are spelled the same. Most of the time, unless you're specifically enunciating, they're not even said the same! The first one is often weak, and said more like "thet" or "thit", whereas the second one is always said "that".
Like in "he said that that window...", the second one could be replaced with "this window" or "the blue window", but the first one is a grammatical structure and can't be replaced with "this". And again, if you listen to a native English speaker (at least with most accents) speaking at speed they'll say the grammatical one "thit" (or something like it), and if you were to say "that window is blue" with the same pronunciation of "that" as you do for the other "that", it would sound wrong. Because your brain knows they're not interchangeable words.
Or at least you'll sounds Kiwi 😉
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.
Tap for spoiler
James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”; “had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.
All the good faith I had had had had no meaningful effect on that that had not been changed. Had it had an effect, the affect would effect the creaking warped wood that would control my destiny; had it had, of course.
All the good faith I had had had had no outcome on that that in that sentence.
It was right there
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Three buffalos too many
Nope, just clarifying that the Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo do also in turn buffalo Buffalo buffalo (possibly as part of a vicious circle of buffaloing).
Could be even more specific and say that they only buffalo Buffalo buffalo who're already being buffaloed by Buffalo buffalo..:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo...
... though that'd mean that the original Buffalo buffalo who instigated all the buffaloing might be getting away with it without being themselves buffaloed in turn...
Thanks, I hate it.
Non-native english speaker brain melting here
Reading that felt like mental gymnastics. I didn't even get bronze. As a native English speaker to anyone learning the language... "I pity the fool".
That "that that" that he had had in his sentence was grammatically correct.
My problem with English is that the word "tough" should be spelt "tuff"
Just last night / this morning, I was trying to find a Scrubs clip featuring JD saying "that is so weird that I didn't notice that I did that."
I was unsuccessful, but it's still an upsetting sentence.
Double is annoys me for no obvious reason.
Also the church "thank you that" idiom. Nobody anywhere else ever says "thank you that" when thanking someone for something.
Posts on Lemmy don't have a huge readership, but it's nice that that that that had had had had something to contribute.
Lots of languages have stuff like this. There's only so many sounds you can make.
top 50 comments