Memes for the masses, chuckles for the chosen.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cruel
We’re here for laughs, not fights.
Rule 2: No Forbidden Formats
Not every image deserves immortality on the memmlefield. That means:
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can take care of it.
Otherwise consider this your call to duty. Get posting or laughing. Up to you
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/30396216
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."
Yes, OP image is legit someone who is just not very good at grammar.
"I wish you had told me that that was a problem".
"I wish you had told me that was a problem".
The same subject, object and meaning.
Speech patterns are flexible and don't have to precisely follow written grammar. One of the many confusing intricacies of the bastard language we call English.
I would argue that the grammar is better and clearer in your ~~second~~ first example.
Edit: oops
Why not just say, "He wanted to make sure the window was closed."?
To reword the OP, "All my good faith had no effect on the outcome."
To reword the title, "I hate when that happens."
Agreed, almost every time this happens, I think someone's just being lazy or intentional. As a matter of personal preference, I reword sentences to exclude the word "that" altogether whenever possible, so the idea of two consecutive "that"s being unavoidable severly strains my credulity.
To reword the OP, “All my good faith had no effect on the outcome.”
sometimes when telling a story you want to have a different voice, active voice versus passive voice or something. "All the good faith I'd had" hits different than "All my good faith"
there's better ways to word this though, while being able to keep the same tone
It’s crazy that that sentence is totally understandable.
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.
somehow more upsetting than that buffalo nonsense
"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.
None is required, unless you’re nitpicking the lack of a period.
It is grammatical correct, but it is not a sentence without punctuation.
In the grammar test, Timmy, where Tommy had had 'had had' had had 'had'. 'Had had' had had the teachers approval and was correct.
is a semantically and syntactically entirely correct and logical sentence.
Okay 20+ reposts, it’s spam. You’re getting blocked.
The Chinese have an entire story with seemingly one word that varies only by how it is pronounced:
Now imagine the kids like: "Hey, mom, can we have a bedtime story?" and the mom just going full "shi shi shi shi"
All of the good faith that I had had had had no effect on the outcome that that sentence had had
All the good faith I had had had had no outcome on that that in that sentence.
It was right there
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 😉
The sound in the weak form is a schwa
In Ukrainian, there would be a comma in between "had had"s. I hate that English doesn't do that. You don't need punctuation to affect the way the sentence is read aloud, just make it easier to parse.
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...
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.
Non-native english speaker brain melting here
Put a comma between the middle two had's. Had had is still awful phrasing though.
me as a turkish speaker every time I have to use "the" or "que" in a sentence (or choose between using s, c or k)
Pathetic.jpg
lingua fucka
You never actually have to do that. Skill issue tbh.
Thanks for the sign but can you put a wider space between the boar and and and and and dog please?
Shut up up there
Idk
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.
The tradition is to ask other people to add punctuation to this perfectly legitimate sentence, but I already added a period to the end and as far as I'm concerned we can just call it done.
James, while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.
James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”; “had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.
There is dumb shit like this in every living language. Just accept it and move on. And maybe watch RealRealJapan for the idiosyncrasies of Japanese.
That that that that he had had in his sentence was grammatically correct.
That that that that he had had had had been correct
ftfy
My problem with English is that the word "tough" should be spelt "tuff"
Sounds ruff.
I thot about this thurowley
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".
One I see people use a lot "What your problem is is that...."
Posts on Lemmy don't have a huge readership, but it's nice that that that that had had had had something to contribute.