<story><title>James while John had had had ... had had had a better effect on the teacher</title><url>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>gruseom</author><text>A friend of mine tells a story that&apos;s about as close as real life gets to this kind of language trick. He was helping a friend in college study for her Test of English as a Foreign Language. She was working on past tenses and, sincerely attempting to explain a mistake she&apos;d made, he told her: &quot;If you had had &apos;had&apos; here, you would have had to have had &apos;had&apos; there as well.&quot; Whereupon she screamed.</text></comment>
<story><title>James while John had had had ... had had had a better effect on the teacher</title><url>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>slurgfest</author><text>As English, this stuff is totally incomprehensible and unusable. Absolutely nothing is conveyed to actual human English speakers by saying the word &apos;buffalo&apos; 400 times in a row.&lt;p&gt;If it is &apos;grammatical&apos; then it is grammatical by virtue of conforming to some idealized grammar. But when this grammar is so far off not just from anything people say, but anything they can actually understand, it really only means that the idea that this grammar models real English has been reduced to total absurdity.</text></comment>