Grammatiks 101

majorbabs · **Posted:** Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:15 pm

I know, I know, we're not a grammatics school. But given the choice of "had also provided..." or ""also had provided ..." which would you choose? The latter sounds wrong to me but I know my ear isn't the judge. (Example sentence: "He and his dog Fido had also provided many hours of amusement to the inmates." Any TCE thoughts?

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:55 pm

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:59 pm

I don't think it matters, but usually I avoid splitting up two-part verbs.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:24 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
I don't think it matters, but usually I avoid splitting up two-part verbs.<hr></blockquote>
Agreed. I usually warn folk that that word ''also'' might indicate a sentence-structure problem. (I've used that sequence that that in that sentence - how's that!)[ April 13, 2004: Message edited by: Paul Wiggins ]

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:42 pm

Paul, I think I can top that "that that":
By the time I graduated from high school, the grammar lessons that I had had had had a profound effect on me.Regarding the original question:
For clarity, I generally prefer putting the adverb next to the main verb, rather than before the auxiliary verb, although sometimes the intended meaning calls for placement before the entire verb phrase. When there's more than one auxiliary verb, the adverb usually works best after the first auxiliary verb.Just as there's no rule against splitting infinitives, there's no rule against splitting verb phrases, contrary to popular belief.I can't tell from your post, Babs, whether to choose "had also" or "also had" in that example. There's not enough context there to discern the precise intended meaning. My best guess is that either placement means about the same thing, and either is correct. ---[ April 14, 2004: Message edited by: SeaRaven ]

CopyMonkey · **Posted:** Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:53 pm

I habitually use "had also provided" (or "had also" whatever) because it sounds better to me. But whenever it's pointed out to me on a proof, I tend to move the "also" away from the verb, because "also had provided" sounds bad to me -- it separates the subject from the verb in a jarring way. I'd use "had provided"....."also."

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Wed Apr 14, 2004 1:07 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by SeaRaven:

My best guess is that either placement means about the same thing, and either is correct.
[ April 14, 2004: Message edited by: SeaRaven ]<hr></blockquote>
I just find them inelegant either way.

KfitzR · **Posted:** Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:50 am

On the "had" front comes this classic, which can be punctuated to make sense:
Mary where John had had had had had had had.

majorbabs · **Posted:** Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:51 am

Someone's going to have to punctuate that for me because I'm missing it...

DominEditrix · **Posted:** Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:22 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by majorbabs:
Someone's going to have to punctuate that for me because I'm missing it...<hr></blockquote>
Mary, where John had had "had", had had "had had".On the original question: For me, there's a subtle difference in the connotations. "Also had provided..." implies "In addition to having done X, had provided...", whilst "had also provided ..." connotes "had provided X and, in addition, had provided Y". I think what '"sounds" right may depend on context.D.Time flies.
You can't. They're too fast.[ April 14, 2004: Message edited by: DominEditrix ]

Capo di tutti copy · **Posted:** Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:47 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by majorbabs:
I know, I know, we're not a grammatics school. But given the choice of "had also provided..." or ""also had provided ..." which would you choose? The latter sounds wrong to me but I know my ear isn't the judge. (Example sentence: "He and his dog Fido had also provided many hours of amusement to the inmates." Any TCE thoughts?<hr></blockquote>From the HYPERCORRECTION entry in Garner's Modern American Usage:Unsplit verb phrases. A surprising number of writers believe that it's a mistake to put an adverb in the midst of a verb phrase. The surprise is on them: every language authority who addresses the question holds just the opposite view--that the adverb generally *belongs* in the midst of a verb phrase. He also addresses this issue in the SUPERSTITIONS entry. I'm afraid that anyone who would write "They already have gone" instead of the idiomatic "They have already gone" has an ear that has been corrupted by journalese.[ April 14, 2004: Message edited by: Capo di tutti copy ]

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:01 pm

The example "Mary, where John had had 'had,' had had 'had had' " had had the effect of proving that punctuation is cheatin'.

Jackie · **Posted:** Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:21 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by majorbabs:
I know, I know, we're not a grammatics school. But given the choice of "had also provided..." or ""also had provided ..." which would you choose? The latter sounds wrong to me but I know my ear isn't the judge. (Example sentence: "He and his dog Fido had also provided many hours of amusement to the inmates." Any TCE thoughts?<hr></blockquote>Here are my thoughts (be charitable, this is my Friday):"Had also provided many hours" to me says that he and Fido provided many hours in addition to (he and Fido) providing something else."Also had provided many hours" to me says that he and Fido, as well as someone else, provided many hours.Sir Walsh, is that kosher? Seriously, I'd like to know what your opinion is.

bwalsh · **Posted:** Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:49 pm

I think whatever sets the stage for that sentence governs how it will be read, no matter which phrasing you choose. "Had also" strikes me as the natural way to write it; "also had" strikes me as edit-speak.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:45 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by DominEditrix:
Mary, where John had had "had", had had "had had".<hr></blockquote>If memory serves, there's more to that: "'Had had' had had an interesting effect on the teacher."OK, I've had it.

majorbabs · **Posted:** Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:34 am

"Besides governing Texas, Bush had also refereed Little League games." To be honest, I think "also had" sounds stilted and "had also" sounds much more like people-speak. I guess my question is really where do we draw the line between the right way (grammatically) and the wrong way (that sounds correct)?

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:25 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by majorbabs:
"Besides governing Texas, Bush had also refereed Little League games." To be honest, I think "also had" sounds stilted and "had also" sounds much more like people-speak. I guess my question is really where do we draw the line between the right way (grammatically) and the wrong way (that sounds correct)?<hr></blockquote>Despite my earlier post, I'd say go with the ear when in doubt. My aversion to splitting verbs is nothing more than a tic.

Powderhorn · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:26 pm

When we were preparing to invade Iraq more than a year ago, I remember the news editor bitching about Bush's words, because they were the headline."Why couldn't he have said 'The tyrant soon will be gone'?" she asked.A few weeks later, on her day off, the two of us working decided to mutiny against the split-verb-phrase rule. Mere weeks after that, it was no longer a rule.[ April 22, 2004: Message edited by: Pete Hahnloser ]

Testy Copy Editors

Grammatiks 101

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links