Not sure if this has been discussed. Which words can be repeated in English directly after one another? 'Had had' is well known, but I think there are cases where 'for for' is okay too. Which others are there?
The word word comes to mind.
oh, that that would be the only one.
Will will fit the bill, Bill?
Come to that, fit fit into any such sentence...
there was a time time would fly.
> can you cage cage?
Er, what? That's not really what I had in mind. Okay, what if we disallow the use of nouns and proper nouns. Of course you, you can probably come up with them either way - but I didn't mean simple repetition of words in separate clauses either. Or very, very straight forward repetitions for that matter;-)
I guess, then, I have no idea what you are asking. seems to me, any word that can be both noun and verb would fit the bill, but.
In proofreading a document with many fonts, an editor was heard to say, "I think that that that, that that that replaces, should be that that that was originally called for.
Edited to add the last five words to that that was originally there.
Marcus Laecus: The Miles Gloriosus?
Solider: The the himself.
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum
Belli: Agree with eta. I had Laverne close her eyes, open a dictionary, point to a word at random. The word was "tasty"
That was certainly a tasty (adj) tasty (n)
> oh, that that would be the only one.
Do you find yourself using a slightly different pronunciation for these two instances? I do - something like "thut thAAAT". Just occurred to me!
Shouldn't that last sentence be"That just occured to me"?
That that adds another that that keeps that idea going.
That that that you referred to certainly would do just that!
One of my favorite puzzles, of which your query reminded me, is:
Punctuate the following sentence:
Jim where Bill had had had had had had had had had was right.
[Yes, not technically the ninefold repitition of a word. But amusing, no?]
Jim, where Bill had had "had had", had had "had"; "had had" was right.
Quote:
Jim, where Bill had had "had had", had had "had"; "had had" was right.
But did you know they had been writing a paper for English class?
Jim, where Bill had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher and received a better grade.
Quite some many years ago I had a supervisor who was shall we say not the nicest person in the world. When bloviating, Bill would use his fingers for quote signs, driving pretty much everyone crazy. He would have had a field day with that sentence. Our worst experience with him, though, was at our traditional Christmas luncheon at a nice restaurant in the Cherry Creek part of Denver.
Bill was there half an hour before the rest of us and was quite in his cups (and he got mean when he drank.) There were eight of us, and when we all got comfortably settled in Bill ordered a bottle of wine, which the waiter brought and poured around for everyone at the table.
Bill stood up, grabbed the waiter by the shirt, pushed him against the wall, and said, "Listen, m---- f----, that bottle of wine was for me. Now bring another bottle and put that other one on their tabs."
I got up and walked out, followed by everyone else. Why the waiter did not file charges against him I will never know. And on Monday all of us put in for transfers out.
Why not continue the pairs sequence?
Jim, where Bill had had "had had", had had "had, had"; "had had" had had "had, had" beaten into second place in the judgment of the teacher and so had received a better grade.