My mind says yes, there are, but I can’t remember which ones.
I was reminded by reading this sentence: “The two men have so much to say to each other*** that that ***initial encounter turns into a 13-hour conversation.”
Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
I try to avoid duplicating words but sometimes I do do that.
I assume we’re ignoring titles and things that would skirt the use-mention distinction, thusly :
“Where can I buy the ‘The Hangover’ poster?”
“What’s the correct way to use ‘use’ in a sentence?”
Or slang :
“Time to get me a little somethin’-somethin’.”
“Hear, hear!”
Badger badger badger badger?
It depends on what the definition of “is” is.
Are we talking about what’s commonly used, or what is grammatically correct?
Do do?
“I don’t do that.”
“Then what is it that you DO do?”
Separated by a comma:
“So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”
Well, well, another language thread. Yes, yes, I know that they can be very interesting.
We have a winner!
“James, while John had had “had,” had had “had had”; “had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.”
You’re a few buffalo short of the max:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Edit: The word “buffalo” has now lost all meaning to me after looking at so many instances of the word itself.
Had had.
When asked if she’d ever contracted chicken pox, she replied that she had had the disease as a child.
Even though he is only the boss’s nephew, he has been given so much power that he can can any employee he feels like.
I hate nepotism.
mushroom mushroom
I too was going to suggest “had had”.
But not, “had had had had had had had had had had had”
Bravo.
Very very interesting.
That one always takes me a couple moments to figure out, especially since I’m not used to seeing the word “buffalo” as a verb meaning “to perplex/confuse.”
I love love, and hate hate.
I must admit I don’t get it though. Let me replace “had had” with “used to have had” - except when the had had is in quotes in the sentence, because that doesn’t’ need an explanation.
James, while John used to have “had”, used to have “had had”; “had had” used to have a better effect on the teacher.
Are you sure the “while” shouldn’t be “where”? That I could interpret.
James, where John used to have “had”, (he) used to have “had had”; “had had” has in the past had a better effect on the teacher.