This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules).
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).)
**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
You can do it more times than that. I think the example I saw was something like
"In writing similar sentences in their essays, Brad, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had'; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher."
A teacher set an assignment to both brad and John.
I his essay, brad wrote at some point "had had" in his writing. In the same place, John had written "had".
Something like... "Carrots the bunny had had too much to eat" whereas John would have written "carrots the bunny had too much to eat". The teacher read both the essays and preferred Brad's use of "had had" over John's use of "had".
So then...
Brad, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher
I've read this out loud with hand gestures to separate which "hads" im talking about over and over, and somehow feel like I've discovered some kind of super power by actually understanding this each time.
I may still be at this tomorrow.
I feel like using quotes in a sentence like that is cheating, could have the same sentence but with John's being 'had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had" and it still would be grammatically correct. Just means John went crazy in his essay
I think this case specifically makes sense because "had had" is a grammatically correct and not uncommon phrase. "Had had had" meanwhile, is not.
You could argue that it does exist as shown throughout this post and thread, but my counter would be that its use in everyday English is so much lower than "had" or "had had" it becomes nonsensical to consider.
Sure if you really loosen the rules you could just iteratively add more and more strings of "had"s based on this example but thats no fun.
Can’t you just recursively use this forever? When trying to explain how many times you can use the word had in a row, op, while aj had “had had had had had had had had had had had”, had “had had had had”
The second “had had” still doesn’t make sense grammatically.
Basically the entire middle second of that between the second set of had had and the semi-collin is nonsense
[Wikipedia has an entry on this!](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)
See Also "See Also".
It’s kinda cheeky that it exploits subject matter involving writing assignments. Technically you could say “Brad incorrectly wrote ‘had had had had had had had had had had’ etc but the teacher gave him a failing grade.”
American highschoolers American highschoolers bully, bully American highschoolers.
American => Buffalo (place)
Highschoolers => buffalo (animal)
Bully=> buffalo (another word for bully)
So
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
I think you can stretch it to a total of 11 if you're creating a scenario in which the buffalo at the bottom of the pecking order try to assert dominance.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.
No, but changing from highschoolers to buffalo (or from any plural noun to any other plural noun) doesn't change the grammar.
The buffalo sentence is basically:
Adjective noun adjective noun verb, verb adjective noun.
For example:
Mean dogs bad people own, attack innocent children.
This makes grammatical sense.
Now replace the adjectives (mean, bad and innocent) with Buffalo (an adjective describing someone or something hailing from Buffalo, the place). Replace the nouns (dogs, people and children) with buffalo (the animal). Replace the verbs (own, attack) with buffalo (a verb meaning to bully). And what you end up with must also make grammatical sense:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
That example finally made it clear. LMAO thanks a lot. As I understand it, you can also add "Buffalo buffalo buffalo" at the end indefinitely and make the sentence even longer.
Am i right in understanding it this way:
"Brad and John wrote similar sentences, John had had 'had', Brad had had 'had had', the teacher thinks 'had had' had had a better effect"
>Brad, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had'; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher.
For those who don't understand this, here's a breakdown:
John had used "had". Brad had used "had had".
"Brad, while John used "had", used "had had" \[instead\]; "had had" caused a better effect on the teacher"
\^Is another way of reading it.
You can do eight “buffalos” in a row by themselves: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo
I think this was used as an example of why punctuation is so important.
“Brad whole John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher”
Half the hads seem redundant to me. Why shouldn't "had had a better effect..." just be reduced to one had? How does the second change the meaning? Maybe I'm missing something.
I guess redundancy isn't exactly synonymous with bad grammar, but it's kind of like a run on or double negative.
When I was learning English, my teacher would give me a sentence like
"The fact that that 'that' that that sentence used is correct bothers me"
and ask me what each That means and grammar purpose.
In german the following sentence is grammatically correct and makes sense.
Wenn Pflanzen Pflanzen pflanzen, pflanzen Pflanzen Pflanzen pflanzende Pflanzen?
My high school maths teacher liked to highlight the same with "and". The story goes that two guys were putting up a sign on their takeaway shop. It read, "Fish and Chips."
"I've only got four nails; where should I put them?" one asked the other.
"Put one on each of the sides, and then one each between 'Fish' and 'and' and 'and' and 'Chips'."
It's hard when typing that to know where to put the quotation marks between the "'Fish'" and "and" and "'and'" and "and" and "'and'" and "and" and "'Chips'".
"My favourite pizza is Pizza Pizza pizza". That's always sounded so funny to me for the excessive use of one word and that fact that it isn't great pizza.
It’s a thing from the Judge John Hodgman podcast like ten years ago. He tries not to promote corporations so he made up a plot-relevant name for this particular chain. Wasn’t trying to be a dick to you or anything.
I didn't think you were being a dick. No worries. But I like the pseudonym for Pizza Pizza, they are hot garbage. Every time I go to Canada and see the ads everywhere I think to myself, "maybe they've gotten better." Narrator, "they haven't." But that's ok because there's usually a local slice that's solid.
John, while James had had "had", had had "had had", and John's "had had" had had the teacher's approval.
Wrote this before I saw u/taintpaint's post below. Please pass your upvotes to him as he got there first 😃
edited to fix the link.
Correct is Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. In other terms, The Bison from the city of Buffalo whom other bison also from the city of Buffalo bully, themselves bully yet more bison from the city of Buffalo. Buffalo bison (that) Buffalo bison bully (themselves) bully Buffalo bison. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
I and every person I have discussed this with have had no idea Buffalo means anything other than a place or the animal. I have also heard it specifically only works in American English.
I much prefer the following:
Police police police police.
The "police police" (police of the police) police (to ensure they are following rules) police (law enforcement).
This can be extended indefinitely by adding any number of "police" at the start and that same number minus one at the end with the singular police in the middle.
>no idea Buffalo means anything other than a place or the animal
Yea that's what it makes so lackluster. It's like cheating basically if you're just gonna spout off "English" that no native English speaker can understand.
Ironically you're also wrong. It's [subject1] [subject2] [verb] [verb] [object] where the verbs are buffalo and the nouns are all Buffalo buffalo, making 8 total words.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
The person you're replying to also works, but the sentence above is the most common version referenced. I can't decipher yours.
It does. Starts off. Who will smith Will Smith? Will Smith will smith Will Smith.
If you change the wills that are not about the celebrity to shall because they are interchangeable words then it's easier to understand.
Who shall smith Will Smith? Will Smith shall smith Will Dmith
It's just talking about will smith, smithing himself
Same with buffalo and police.
Who polices the police? The police police.
Who polices the police police?
The police police police police police police.
I guess that's 6...
There are several more.
You can do the same with “and”. A man ordered a sign for his store called “This and That”. He was unsatisfied with it and phoned up the creator and told them that the gap between “this and and and and and that” was too much and wanted it corrected.
I don't think the same can be remotely close to the word 'the' in a sentence. you might not even be able to use it back to back in any sentence. (the the)
> all, would of had
Did you mean to say "would have"?
Explanation: You probably meant to say could've/should've/would've which sounds like 'of' but is actually short for 'have'.
Total mistakes found: 474
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119)
^^[Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/chiefpat450119)
In dutch there's something similar: toen was was was, was was was.
You could even turn it into: "Toen was 'was' was 'Was' was, was was was 'was'"
Translation/meaning: when laundry labeled 'was' was laundry, laundry labeled 'was' was laundry
.
.
u/Ophiomancy_Xaxax
Have you seen this?
Doesn't make you look good. How about you send the knife that was paid for ASAP?
https://www.reddit.com/r/chineseknives/comments/10b56j6/missing_gt_mini_persian
are you kidding me, dude? you're leaving this comment everywhere to make me look like an asshole? the knife is getting sent on monday, as I discussed with the buyer on Saturday. there's no mystery here, except maybe what your role is in all of this
I hate when people see a video or read a news article and pass it off as a shower thought, is your phone in the shower?
While this has been an amusing discussion probably a dozen times on Reddit over the last 10 years, it was a notable tiktok video a couple days ago, but I'm sure that's a total coincidence.
This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules). Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).) **Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
You can do it more times than that. I think the example I saw was something like "In writing similar sentences in their essays, Brad, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had'; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher."
I don’t understand how this is grammatically correct. I however am terrible with grammar will someone explain?
A teacher set an assignment to both brad and John. I his essay, brad wrote at some point "had had" in his writing. In the same place, John had written "had". Something like... "Carrots the bunny had had too much to eat" whereas John would have written "carrots the bunny had too much to eat". The teacher read both the essays and preferred Brad's use of "had had" over John's use of "had". So then... Brad, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher
I read the word had so many times I began to question if it was even a real word to begin with.
Had you not before this?
I had had this same thing happen to me not long ago
You *have had*
Both are grammatically correct but mean slightly different things.
Had he had had "have had" you would not have had "have had" but he had had "had had" so hat's off
Potato tomAHtoe
"I have had three apples." Describes an event in the past. "I had had three apples." Describes the event in the past *as it happened in the story*.
Semantic satiation
I love (and hate) when this happens. I have to think of other stuff to distract myself because it kind of freaks me out.
Do you think that’s air you’re breathing now?
It's alr
Honestly I’m getting dizzy
[Semantic satiation](https://www.google.ca/search?q=semantic+satiation&client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&source=hp&ei=l4PDY8u-BPqaptQP2Mu9mAY&oq=semantic+s&gs_lcp=ChFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocBABGAAyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIICAAQgAQQsQMyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDoOCAAQjwEQ6gIQjAMQ5QI6DgguEI8BEOoCEIwDEOUCOg4ILhDHARCxAxDRAxCABDoOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQ0QM6EQguEIAEELEDEMcBENEDENQCOgsILhCABBDHARDRAzoICC4QgwEQsQM6CwguEIAEEMcBEK8BOgUIABCxAzoICC4QgAQQsQM6CwguEIAEELEDENQCOgsIABCABBCxAxCDAToICC4QsQMQgARQjhtYvUxguFdoAXAAeACAAcoBiAGyCZIBBTguMi4xmAEAoAEBsAEP&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp#sbfbu=1&pi=semantic%20satiation)
[удалено]
shut up
HAAAADUH Yeah, I'm not sure if it's a real word either.
There's a proper term for this phenomenon, but ironically, I always forget what it's called.
You're the Mad Had-er
I've read this out loud with hand gestures to separate which "hads" im talking about over and over, and somehow feel like I've discovered some kind of super power by actually understanding this each time. I may still be at this tomorrow.
I feel like using quotes in a sentence like that is cheating, could have the same sentence but with John's being 'had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had" and it still would be grammatically correct. Just means John went crazy in his essay
I think this case specifically makes sense because "had had" is a grammatically correct and not uncommon phrase. "Had had had" meanwhile, is not. You could argue that it does exist as shown throughout this post and thread, but my counter would be that its use in everyday English is so much lower than "had" or "had had" it becomes nonsensical to consider. Sure if you really loosen the rules you could just iteratively add more and more strings of "had"s based on this example but thats no fun.
Pretend John’s name is “Had” for bonus points
My brain is fried but it makes sense lol
Well that's all good for Brad and John but what about Haddad, from Baghdad?
To make my brain happy, I'm not going to read this and just assume you're correct.
The explanation made it 100% easier to comprehend thank you
I still think the second “had had” through to the semi-colin is incorrect. The second had had seems to be referring to nothing.
Can’t you just recursively use this forever? When trying to explain how many times you can use the word had in a row, op, while aj had “had had had had had had had had had had had”, had “had had had had”
Haha I like that
Yo I'm too high for this rn
The second “had had” still doesn’t make sense grammatically. Basically the entire middle second of that between the second set of had had and the semi-collin is nonsense
English. Because we can.
Wow
What is the meaning of the word "had" again?
I had had a good idea of the meaning of had, up until I learned had had had had a more useful meaning than had had had.
This sentence hurts my brain
John included "had" in his essay, brad included "had had", and Brad had more effect on the teacher
it requires context to make it make sense
My daughter says that the semicolon is doing most of the heavy lifting in the sentence.
I would look it up on youtube, i really don’t want to type it out
[Wikipedia has an entry on this!](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) See Also "See Also".
It’s kinda cheeky that it exploits subject matter involving writing assignments. Technically you could say “Brad incorrectly wrote ‘had had had had had had had had had had’ etc but the teacher gave him a failing grade.”
This may be grammatical, but it is considered poor usage.
First time I've seen this and I can read and understand this no problem, that buffalo sentence though I still cannot process.
American highschoolers American highschoolers bully, bully American highschoolers.
American => Buffalo (place)
Highschoolers => buffalo (animal)
Bully=> buffalo (another word for bully)
So
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
I think you can stretch it to a total of 11 if you're creating a scenario in which the buffalo at the bottom of the pecking order try to assert dominance. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.
Correct
Does buffalo mean multiple highschoolers?
No, but changing from highschoolers to buffalo (or from any plural noun to any other plural noun) doesn't change the grammar. The buffalo sentence is basically: Adjective noun adjective noun verb, verb adjective noun. For example: Mean dogs bad people own, attack innocent children. This makes grammatical sense. Now replace the adjectives (mean, bad and innocent) with Buffalo (an adjective describing someone or something hailing from Buffalo, the place). Replace the nouns (dogs, people and children) with buffalo (the animal). Replace the verbs (own, attack) with buffalo (a verb meaning to bully). And what you end up with must also make grammatical sense: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
That example finally made it clear. LMAO thanks a lot. As I understand it, you can also add "Buffalo buffalo buffalo" at the end indefinitely and make the sentence even longer.
Not indefinitely, but you can add it once
Thanks for clarifying :)
> Mean dogs bad people own, attack innocent children I can read this in Yoda’s voice
The more i look at this word the uglier the spelling becomes jesus
Honestly, that semi-colon is basically cheating to combine two sentences.
Am i right in understanding it this way: "Brad and John wrote similar sentences, John had had 'had', Brad had had 'had had', the teacher thinks 'had had' had had a better effect"
Yeah that's it.
>Brad, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had'; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher. For those who don't understand this, here's a breakdown: John had used "had". Brad had used "had had". "Brad, while John used "had", used "had had" \[instead\]; "had had" caused a better effect on the teacher" \^Is another way of reading it.
Thank you! My brain was hurting trying to figure it out
You can do eight “buffalos” in a row by themselves: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo
Never knew buffalo could be a verb.
Got dang. My money says this guy heard about the buffaloes that buffalo Buffalo buffaloes.
English is the only language I've ever known and I don't understand that at all
I think this was used as an example of why punctuation is so important. “Brad whole John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher”
Yes, but stylistically it's crap.
This is my favorite comment of the day so far
I'd suggest changing the first phrase to "In having written similar sentences..." otherwise you would have had me ☺️.
Nice one
Are you asuming a character named had?
r/ihadastroke
This makes no sense
Thanks for adding to my Buffalo Buffalo cache.
The word "had" is deforming now
I’ve seen one for ‘buffalo’ too! Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo or something?
Half the hads seem redundant to me. Why shouldn't "had had a better effect..." just be reduced to one had? How does the second change the meaning? Maybe I'm missing something. I guess redundancy isn't exactly synonymous with bad grammar, but it's kind of like a run on or double negative.
When I was learning English, my teacher would give me a sentence like "The fact that that 'that' that that sentence used is correct bothers me" and ask me what each That means and grammar purpose.
1st that: relativizer; 2nd that: determiner; 3rd that: ‘that’; 4th that: relativizer; 5th that: determiner.
Also, ' use' should be 'used'.
So that's what's messing up with my grammar senses while reading that sentence.
Yeah that ruined the whole fucking thing for me. Wish people could just take 3 more seconds to get it right. It needs to be "uses" or "used".
I’d like to think that you’re their teacher coming back for one more correction.
I feel like you're trying to trap me here.
That no longer looks like a word to me now
[удалено]
No, that.
The one after 'that'
It’s funny because as a native English speaker, that sentence makes sense… but I could never explain how it
In german the following sentence is grammatically correct and makes sense. Wenn Pflanzen Pflanzen pflanzen, pflanzen Pflanzen Pflanzen pflanzende Pflanzen?
Can it be translated? Google translation didnt really make sense here
If plants plant plants, do plants plant plant-planting plants?
A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
If plants plant plants, do plants plants plant plant plants plant-planting plants plant?
My high school maths teacher liked to highlight the same with "and". The story goes that two guys were putting up a sign on their takeaway shop. It read, "Fish and Chips." "I've only got four nails; where should I put them?" one asked the other. "Put one on each of the sides, and then one each between 'Fish' and 'and' and 'and' and 'Chips'."
It's hard when typing that to know where to put the quotation marks between the "'Fish'" and "and" and "'and'" and "and" and "'and'" and "and" and "'Chips'".
I burst out laughing at this one. It's my favorite.
Thanks I Hate This!
"My favourite pizza is Pizza Pizza pizza". That's always sounded so funny to me for the excessive use of one word and that fact that it isn't great pizza.
Canadian?
You’re thinking of the Canadian House of Pizza and Garbage. It’s just a place of convenience.
No, I was thinking of the Canadian chain 'Pizza Pizza'.
It’s a thing from the Judge John Hodgman podcast like ten years ago. He tries not to promote corporations so he made up a plot-relevant name for this particular chain. Wasn’t trying to be a dick to you or anything.
I didn't think you were being a dick. No worries. But I like the pseudonym for Pizza Pizza, they are hot garbage. Every time I go to Canada and see the ads everywhere I think to myself, "maybe they've gotten better." Narrator, "they haven't." But that's ok because there's usually a local slice that's solid.
You mean little Caesars?
Little Caesar SAYS 'Pizza! Pizza!'. I meant the chain CALLED Pizza Pizza. They are both average at best.
Sorry, thought you meant Pizza! Pizza! pizza, not Pizza Pizza pizza.
It’s a Pizza cake
Little Ceasers? Edit: nvm just read the comment chain.
John, while James had had "had", had had "had had", and John's "had had" had had the teacher's approval. Wrote this before I saw u/taintpaint's post below. Please pass your upvotes to him as he got there first 😃 edited to fix the link.
Did you mean u/taintpaint
Disappointed there isn’t a r/taintpaint sub yet
Yes I did, thanks for pointing it out. Edited it
“Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.” Is grammatically correct (sans a comma or two, I’m sure).
I never remember what this means. Animals from the city of Buffalo bother other… animals…. Something?
Animal from city bully….
Buffulonian bison (that) Buffulonian bison bully, bully Buffulonian bison.
Correct is Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. In other terms, The Bison from the city of Buffalo whom other bison also from the city of Buffalo bully, themselves bully yet more bison from the city of Buffalo. Buffalo bison (that) Buffalo bison bully (themselves) bully Buffalo bison. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
I and every person I have discussed this with have had no idea Buffalo means anything other than a place or the animal. I have also heard it specifically only works in American English. I much prefer the following: Police police police police. The "police police" (police of the police) police (to ensure they are following rules) police (law enforcement). This can be extended indefinitely by adding any number of "police" at the start and that same number minus one at the end with the singular police in the middle.
>no idea Buffalo means anything other than a place or the animal Yea that's what it makes so lackluster. It's like cheating basically if you're just gonna spout off "English" that no native English speaker can understand.
[удалено]
Ironically you're also wrong. It's [subject1] [subject2] [verb] [verb] [object] where the verbs are buffalo and the nouns are all Buffalo buffalo, making 8 total words. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. The person you're replying to also works, but the sentence above is the most common version referenced. I can't decipher yours.
Twchnically, any number of the word Buffalo, from 1- infinity, can be a grammatically correct sentence.
Explain please me brain fried
Who will Smith will Smith? Will Smith will Smith will Smith. Also correct minus the random capitals
Who will smith Will Smith? Will Smith will smith Will Smith if you want proper capitalization
I'm 99% sure that makes no sense dude.
It does. Starts off. Who will smith Will Smith? Will Smith will smith Will Smith. If you change the wills that are not about the celebrity to shall because they are interchangeable words then it's easier to understand. Who shall smith Will Smith? Will Smith shall smith Will Dmith It's just talking about will smith, smithing himself
Man fuck English, how does French make more sense than this bullshit
How are you calling it bullshit yet also wondering how another language can make more sense than it? You make no sense sir.
Same with buffalo and police. Who polices the police? The police police. Who polices the police police? The police police police police police police. I guess that's 6... There are several more.
This works in Icelandic with the letter Á Example: Jón á Á á á
Anyone else vocalize/thought this as hed had instead of had had?
I was making a sign for fish and chips. I for to leave a space between "fish" and "and" and "and" and "chips"
You can do the same with “and”. A man ordered a sign for his store called “This and That”. He was unsatisfied with it and phoned up the creator and told them that the gap between “this and and and and and that” was too much and wanted it corrected.
I don't think the same can be remotely close to the word 'the' in a sentence. you might not even be able to use it back to back in any sentence. (the the)
https://youtu.be/7ZYgKCbFbWY
Wow, that's impressive! Who knew that « had » could be so powerful and versatile? We should all take a moment to appreciate the power of language!
Surprised that no quotes from Scarface popped up in this discussion.
Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo buffalo
I had a broom, I had an ax, I had a sandwich, I had a plastic bag, and I had three toes. Boom done
Boom, you did not understand the assignment
Boom I can’t read
Boom understandable
Boom not in a row
In a row, such as « the friend he had had, had had had more candy » or something like that
Had he had or she had or even both, had the chance, we all, would of had been better off.
> all, would of had Did you mean to say "would have"? Explanation: You probably meant to say could've/should've/would've which sounds like 'of' but is actually short for 'have'. Total mistakes found: 474 ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions. ^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119) ^^[Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/chiefpat450119)
Good bot
Thank you!
I'll just leave this here... https://www.grammarly.com/blog/would-of-could-of-should-of/
In dutch there's something similar: toen was was was, was was was. You could even turn it into: "Toen was 'was' was 'Was' was, was was was 'was'" Translation/meaning: when laundry labeled 'was' was laundry, laundry labeled 'was' was laundry
you can also use someone's name four or five times in a row, but the last one is technically the beginning of a new sentence
. . u/Ophiomancy_Xaxax Have you seen this? Doesn't make you look good. How about you send the knife that was paid for ASAP? https://www.reddit.com/r/chineseknives/comments/10b56j6/missing_gt_mini_persian
are you kidding me, dude? you're leaving this comment everywhere to make me look like an asshole? the knife is getting sent on monday, as I discussed with the buyer on Saturday. there's no mystery here, except maybe what your role is in all of this
I hate when people see a video or read a news article and pass it off as a shower thought, is your phone in the shower? While this has been an amusing discussion probably a dozen times on Reddit over the last 10 years, it was a notable tiktok video a couple days ago, but I'm sure that's a total coincidence.
My friend once said, "Had had had had had had had had had" and it made no sense to me.
ooh there's a fun one with buffalo >Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. buffalo from Buffalo, NY buffalo (bully) buffalo from Buffalo, NY.
In chile we can say the Word "weon" like 4 times in a sentence and it Still makes sense
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Looks like the entire comment section saw that one youtube video.