The fact that five of the “hads” are not semantically the word “had” but rather a quotation makes this one weaker than “Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo” imo, though you could argue that Buffalo as a proper noun is also kinda cheating.
Yeah, these are really silly if you can use quotes or like place/person names. Like if my Dad named Had lived in a town called Had Had, and his favorite thing to say was “had had had”…it just becomes like stupid to say that’s some crazy example of a grammatical sentence even if it technically is.
I would argue that, without the punctuation, it’s not technically correct. The references to James and John saying “had had,” at least, should be in quotes. Additionally, unless broken up with a semicolon or a period before the final four “hads,” it’s a run-on sentence.
If you change the “hads” that mean provided/said in the context of the sentence (excluding the quoted ones), you could write it as:
James, while John had [said] “had”, had [said] “had had”; “had had” had [provided] a better effect on the teacher.
And though it doesn’t flow right to me to have James and his action verb split by a phrase about John, I’m not sure that’s incorrect. Phrasing it to fix the flow, for me, would be:
While John had [said] “had”, James had [said] “had had”; “had had” had [provided] a better effect on the teacher.
I guess. But to me the most baffling thing is such a sentence can even be constructed. Even disregarding the missing punctuation. I don’t think I could even get close to this in my native language. Maybe 2 or 3 worda at most and even then probably not.
Or this monster:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher
The fact that five of the “hads” are not semantically the word “had” but rather a quotation makes this one weaker than “Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo” imo, though you could argue that Buffalo as a proper noun is also kinda cheating.
Yeah, these are really silly if you can use quotes or like place/person names. Like if my Dad named Had lived in a town called Had Had, and his favorite thing to say was “had had had”…it just becomes like stupid to say that’s some crazy example of a grammatical sentence even if it technically is.
The fact that that sentence can even be considered in any way correct is a fucking travesty
I would argue that, without the punctuation, it’s not technically correct. The references to James and John saying “had had,” at least, should be in quotes. Additionally, unless broken up with a semicolon or a period before the final four “hads,” it’s a run-on sentence.
If you change the “hads” that mean provided/said in the context of the sentence (excluding the quoted ones), you could write it as:
And though it doesn’t flow right to me to have James and his action verb split by a phrase about John, I’m not sure that’s incorrect. Phrasing it to fix the flow, for me, would be:
I guess. But to me the most baffling thing is such a sentence can even be constructed. Even disregarding the missing punctuation. I don’t think I could even get close to this in my native language. Maybe 2 or 3 worda at most and even then probably not.
‘Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den’
That’s plain ol’ fucking stupid.