h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Normandy cider comes in bottles like Champagne, with a cork that goes pop. It is normally served in low flat bowls rather than glasses (perhaps so that the fizz goes up your nose) and is very dry. It is the ideal accompaniment for savoury crepes (pancakes).

On the topic of cider, Thatchers do a good selection of single varietal ciders - Katy, Tremletts bitter, Cox and others

I was always taught to use Should/Would/Could in that order in formal letters - "I should be grateful if you would...Could you please also...".

Should've, would've, could've are valid although not good English. Had've is just bad. It grates!

The doubling of had surely conveys a specific meaning. He/she had had it is the past of He/she is having or I have had it/I am having it (Is there a difference between has had and had had?).

turvy

yes, Turvy, in the examples you cite the doubling of have does have a function. In those cases "to have" is an auxiliary verb conveying various preterit (past tense) meanings. "has had" is imperfect preterite (action is incomplete) and "had had" is pluperfect (action is completed before another action). The complete sequence is "has had" imperfect, "had" perfect (completed action), and "had had" pluperfect.

Is that confusing?

"Is that confusing?"

It would be less so if a different verb were substituted; and UK terminology is (was) different:

"I was running" imperfect,
"I have run" perfect,
"I ran" preterite,
"I had run" pluperfect.

well, yeah. but Turvy was asking about "had had" Now do an English pluperfect passive subjunctive.

Thanks anhaga.

I'm quite new to this so I'll just watch and learn - with the occasional daft question.

t.

Actually what most of us really want and some of desparately need are more daft questions. There is entirely too much watching and learning going on.

~jwf~

"Now do an English pluperfect passive subjunctive."

Would that I had been granted the wisdom to respond positively.

very nice, plaguesville!

I've been coming at it from a different angle with an "if" clause but I'm having a lot of trouble.

At the Thatchers cider place, not sure of the correct term - I don't think it's right to call the place cider is made a brewery and these days it's a lot bigger than a farm barn, you can buy the ciders and also try/buy their cider straight from the barrel. Very nice it is too
Barrel, vat, cask all seem to point to storage vessels. I guess they all have different roots but of course, where and why?

Barrel is from Middle French baril. Vat is from Old English fæt. This suggests that vat was the peasant's word while barrels belonged to the French-speaking aristocracy.

Cask may come from the Middle French casque meaning a helmet. This suggests that cask was originally a nickname, which later became a proper word for the thing.

I did think that vat might have come from old english (short direct words and all that) but wasn't sure where barrel came from at all

As to what a cidery should be called, not sure. I mean a brewery is where you brew. Somehow saying cider is brewed just doesn;t sound.....organic enough. Perhaps a fementary?

Turvy, the 'had had' question was one of the first ones I asked on this thread! Great minds and all that Some kind soul also posted that horrendous sentence with far too many "had's" in it, about 5 or six had's in a row!

I'm sure on of the resident eBOFs could post it again, please?

*fermentary*

tut!

Smith and Jones were doing their grammar test.
Smith, where Jones had had 'had' had had 'had had', 'had had' had had the examiner's approval.

It's is very contrived....

That should be a semicolon, not a comma in the middle of that sentence. As it stands, it is a run-on sentence.

Admit it Gnomon, you just put that through MS Words Grammar checker didn't you?

No I didn't. But I have done now. Amazingly, MS Word doesn't find anything wrong with it.

Re - the should/could/would issue.

In the example given by Hon Gatekeeper, I don't think it is the order that is so essential as the meaning intended.

Should is used in the sense of future 'obligation' - I shall, I ought - as a conditional consequence of someone else's action.

Would relates to something you know they can do 'If you will do so & so' whereas could 'if you can' implies uncertainty about their ability or power to perform the action specified.

It seems similar to the subtle difference between 'can' & 'may'.