I believe the actual meaning of it is: It’s crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsky in snide.
In autumn, the oak tree leaves leaves on the ground.
Not not not necessarily necessarily possibly possibly true. I think all of my examples (in the post above) are not (or need not be) emphasis cases, and they can be the same word. At the least, “not” counts as a clear counter example, does it not?
And then, of course, there’s this:
That that is, is; that that is not, is not; is not that it? It is.
My name, when repeated 3 times forms a completely grammatically correct sentence.
“Drew drew Drew” or in other words “A man named Drew has drawn a picture of another man named Drew”
“Rob, rob Rob!” is an imperative for, “Rob, go and steal from that man named Rob!”
CC writes:
> I believe the actual meaning of it is: It’s crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsky in
> snide.
Wow, I actually remember that. A reference to Mad that’s at least fifty years old, and it’s taken from an even older novel.
Bet you can’t do the waltz.
Of course I can waltz!
Well, betcha can’t do the Can Can.
Of course I can Can Can!
Will peanut butter butter bread as easily as real butter?
Toasting will also brown brown bread.
Will Will will his estate to his nephew? Yes he will will it to him.
It was a tasty spread spread out on the table in front of him.
Basically it seems any word that can be several types - noun, verb, adverb, etc. -then you can probably torture English to stick them together.
“yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation” yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Pat is a vicious dog, while Pat Junior is gentle. To pat Pat, pat Pat Junior first and he’ll be more cooperative.
The buzzards in the gorgeous gorge gorge on carrion in the hot sun.
Then there’s the tongue-twister about cooking:
“Betty Botta bought a bit of butter to bake a batch of batter but the butter Betty Botta bought was bitter, so Betty Botta bought a better bit of butter to bake a better batch of batter.”
The repetitiveness is more phonetic.
How awesome awesome Bulls are this season, I can see how NBA is not that enjoyable to many fans.
Here’s another “in in.”
I was emailing someone about a deadline. I said, “I don’t think we can get it in in time.” I changed the second “in” to “on.” That was easy, but I usually find it hard to reword “had had.”
With a bit of grammatical torture, I think we can expand on this (and for variety, let’s make Patrick a friendly male dog and Patricia a wary bitch:
I stand pat: to pat Pat pat, pat Pat pat. Too pat?
(i.e. I’ve mastered the routine perfectly: to stroke Patricia opportunely, stroke Patrick perfectly. Is that unconvincingly facile?)
“If you were to second guess your decision to book some time to visit an Indian community, that would be a reservation reservation reservation.” - Brian Regan
I just posted this message to a friend on facebook and I think it’s gramatically correct:
“Whatever music you want to put in in post production is fine”.
Internal Affairs division now investigating other members of the Internal Affairs division.
“Police Police police Police Police.”
Who Polices Police Police?
Why do you want to reword? Those doubled words are perfectly good, clear, grammatical and idiomatic English.
To my ear, at least, “get it in on time” sounds slightly more awkward than “get it in in time”.
The Police Police police Police Police, as described in the previous quote. Now if there was a separate internal-internal affairs unit to police the Police Police who police Police Police then we would have…
Police Police Police police Police Police police Police Police.
Oh. My. God.
English is my second language, and that literally (har har) doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to me.
And I consider myself to be pretty understandable of the english language.