had have had

OK - I've got the answer. Sorry it took so long, but I had to do the research, so I bought a copy of "The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar", (No disputing the authority of that, I hope?), and looked up "plupluperfect". So here's what it said:

plulpluperfect - A verb phrase that contains an additional, superfluous auxiliary, and is used as an alternative to the past perfect. This is heard colloquially and is often written, but is regarded as non-standard. The tense in full is had have + past participle, but is commonly used in shortened form.

Example: We all take TV for granted, but if it hadn't have been for the pioneers at Alexandra Palace it might never have happened.

(That was a negative example, obviously). So in other words, I was right in that the 'd stands for had, not would, and Mister Micawber was right in that this construction is non-standard. Case closed, I think, unless anyone has any futher observations.

If I'd have had the money I would have bought it.

To sort this out, note that the second occurrence of had is synonymous with possessed. So:  If I had had the money ...  =  If I had possessed the money ....

Whether 'd is a contraction of had or would, it is mistaken usage.

If I had have possessed the money … (There is no verb tense that supports this usage.)
If I would have possessed the money …

On the latter usage, see Garner: "Would have for had is an example of a confused sequence of tenses -- e.g., "If the trial judge would have (read had) allowed the evidence to be admitted …."

You think "I had have had" is correct because you are an ignorant who has heard other ingnorants speaking: just do some research on the internet and you'll see that  "I had have had" has no possible logical or grammatical justification.

There is no need to be in the UK to be so ignorant: ignorants are all over the world:  US, Australia, UK, etc.

Anon,

Ok, I see you are a brave soul, making such a bold statement hiding behind an empty entity “Anonymous” calling people “ignorant”. Well, I tell you what, I think I have a couple of shots left in the barrel and I’d like you to have it.

  

First, I am not sure what credential you have giving you the authority to call people “ignorant”.

Secondly, my impression is, so far, every posted thread is no more than a personal interpretation (or mis-interpretation) of the grammar rules on the subjunctive mood. 

 

This is what CJ said and I agreed. Is there a problem with that!

 

If your brain would have generated the correct pulses, you may not have said the word “ignorant”.  

 

If you would have posted the query “ If would have had “ on Google, you would have found many people whom you believe are ignorant fools.

I hope I don't have to relaod..

CalifJim wrote:

The 'd is for would, not for had. If I would have had the money, I would have bought it. – What is wrong with this? This is a perfectly formed subjunctive mood !! The contracted form is usually said If I'd've had the money, (now this I haven’t seen”....  Many people get a little confused and write "had" instead of "would" and/or "of" instead of "have", giving all sorts of strange combinations in written form:  if I had of had, if I would of had, if I had have had, etc. The construction, actually any construction with 'would' in a hypothetical if-clause, is considered non-standard.  The recommended form is "If I had had" or, contracted, "If I'd had". CJ

Then I said:

I've to completely agree with CJ.

"Had have had" does look and sound odd and the contraction of "I would" could be mistaken with "I had" before both could be

written as "I'd.."