OK - consider this sentence:
If I'd have had the money I would have bought it.

Here in the UK, that would be a perfectly reasonable sentence, and so far as I know, grammatically correct. "I'd" is short for "I had", so "I'd have had" expands to "I had have had". I've been hearing, using, and reading, this construction for decades, and no-one's questioned it until now.

Now an American tells me that "had have had" is wrong. If I had to guess, I'd guess that they were looking for "If I'd had" instead of "If I'd have had".

Google certainly confirms that I'm not alone in my use of "had have had". The question is, can this usage be backed up in any formal reference? Or is my American friend right, and I've been getting it wrong for nearly half a century?
1 2 3 4 5 6
Comments  (Page 4) 
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.
Does Oxford mention any other uses of plupluperect? Other than in contrary-to-fact if-clauses?
The definition seems to imply that it is merely an alternative to the past perfect, so is it used as in the following?

John said, "I have read that book".
John said that he had read that book. OR John said that he had have read that book.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
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 …."
CalifJimThe 'd is for would, not for had.

If I would have had the money, I would have bought it.

The contracted form is usually said If I'd've had the money, .... 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".


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...."
This sentence can be rewritten as...................

I would have bought it if I had had the money.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Yes you are wrong, I'm afraid. I've noticed that Americans say "if I would have..."
For example: "If I would have gone there I would have met her" but this is also wrong. The structure is called a third conditional and it is made up of If+ Past perfect " If I had gone" plus would have (done). Or might have / could have etc.
Your sentence isn'r perfectly accep6table in the UK. You should say :
If I had had the money, I would have bought it.
as in: If I had seen the car, I wouldn't have crashed
If I had studied I would have passed the exam etc

American confuse the IF clause and the would have conditional clause.
But you could just say 'If I had the money...' and that'd be fine.
I wrote a reply to this about a week ago but for some reason it hasn't appeared here. Basically the American 'usage' is wrong. There is no construction "If I would have had". I know, I hear it all the time from Americans but it is simply wrong. What you should be saying is " If I'd had..." that is " If I had had.." it is part of a 3rd conditional sentence

"If I had had enough money I would have gone to the concert"
Why Americans started saying "If I would have..." is beyond me.

Well that's all folks.

(Perhaps your previous post was rude? We delete those.-- MM)
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Dear Anon,

Perhaps your response wasn't posted since the thread was started in February of 2006, and it had been completely resolved before your contribution.

Note that the original poster who asked about "I'd have had" was talking about UK usage, so the use is clearly not restricted to the US -- or at least that was the case almost 3 years ago when the poster started this thread.

If you're going to get on a high horse about what's right and what's wrong, take a look at "try AND post." I tried TO post it, and succeeded. Oh wait... current use is actually in favor of "try and...," isn't it? Hmm. Well, over time, actual use detemines what is standard and what is non-standard. That's how language evolves.

EDIT: Oh darn. Another moderator removed your rude and by your standard "wrong" (albeit in common usage) phrase. Too bad. He's right. We dont' like rude and we don't like to be told how to do our job moderating the forums.
Show more