>had had

File: image.jpg (25KB, 634x429px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 634x429px

>>8354258
Haha good bantz

>>8354374
>>>/tv/

aussie scum bag

>>8354258
I noticed Orwell doing this often in Homage to Catalonia. Got a little annoying after a while.

I don't understand why you would do this though. It's completely redundant.

>>8355241
What makes you thinking using the same word twice in a row is redundant ?

>>8354258
>>8355241
> Pluperfect of 'to have' is redundant

Perfectly fine. Learn to read.

>>8355249
>>8355415
It's not grammatically redundant, but your mind fills in the blanks anyway. Homage to Catalonia is an amazing book

File: 1468479994566.jpg (140KB, 622x498px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 622x498px

>>8355241
>It's completely redundant.
congratulations, you triggered me. You're shitting on one of the only interesting things about English Grammar

>>8355433
It looks more like a flaw.

>had had
>that that
It's aesthetically displeasing, but I feel authors throw them in there just because they can. Kinda like when you leave primary school and learn staring a sentence with "and" or "but" is allowed.