Can we have had had in if- clauses?

It will be helpful to answer this question if we first consider under what circumstances we are required to use HAVE twice.

In the sentence I have seen the Taj Mahal we find have plus the past participle of see. The phrase have seen is said to be in the present perfect (tense) form of the verb SEE.

We can also have phrases with the present perfect form of HAVE.  I have had many thrilling experiences.

These phrases, as with all instances of the present perfect, draw attention to the present consequences (or bearing) of a past action. Walking on the old iron bridge across a 400 ft. deep gorge in which the mighty Zambezi flows, with the tremendous Victoria Falls on the right, is an experience you will never forget. Before you have walked 20 steps, you are drenched in a chilling spray, with the smoke-like mist blinding everything around and you don’t know in which direction you are going.  The tremendous din of the waterfall, the mist and spray leave you breathless and shaking.  Well, I have had several unforgettable experiences in my travels but nothing to match this walk on the old iron bridge connecting Zimbabwe with Northern Botswana.

In the above passage the speaker is speaking now about a past experience and its present bearing. Supposing it is a narrative where the writer is writing about the past recollecting some experience of his hero in the further past.  Thus a biographer of Mahatma Gandhi writing about him after his return from South Africa might say: ‘By then he had had several brushes with the law in South Africa.’. Here we see how the past perfect is used.

Now for the use of had had in an if-clause. The context must be one which speaks about an unrealized state of affairs in the ‘before past’. To make the situation clear, let us continue with our account relating to Mahatma Gandhi.

By then (i.e. by the time he returned to India) he had had several brushes with the law in South Africa.  At one point he found some policemen chanting: ‘Hang Gandhi by the nearest tree!’  If he had / had/had / wings would he have flown away?  Which is the correct form?

Recall now that the double use of HAVE (have had/ had had) is necessitated in declarative, non-conditional sentences when a past event is viewed as having a bearing on the present. But in the structure if-had (if I had) the meaning  is not experiential.  It is just the way of expressing in English a non-fact. This meaning is conveyed by just if …had. No need for another HAVE. So in the narrative about Gandhi, although we are speaking about the ‘before past’, the idea of non-fact (=absence of something) is conveyed by just had. If he had wings would he have flown away?

To summarise:  Although had had is found in declarative sentences expressing the past perfect in the ‘before past’, in conditional sentences only had (with if) is needed to express an unrealized state of affairs in all contexts—present, past, before past.

Negation

Negation can be phrasal or sentential. In No politician can be trusted we have a phrasal negation. (The negative is in the subject phrase no politician.) In All politicians cannot be trusted, we have a sentential negation.   The negative is in the verbal group cannot be trusted.

The interesting fact is: it is only in phrasal negation that you get total negation. No politician can be trusted leaves no room for any exception. They are all liars and deceivers.  But All politicians cannot e trusted leaves room for some honourable exceptions. 

This fact about sentential negation is not always realised. All sixteen former MLAs of the party did not attend the meeting (DH Nov. 30, 2007). This sentence can mean ‘some former MLAs attended the meeting but not all’. The sentence has the interpretation as in: It is not the case that all 16 MLAs attended the meeting.  Only some did.
To get the meaning of total negation the writer should have said None of the 16 former MLAs attended the meeting.

There is more to be said on negation but to clinch the issue now consider: All of them did not attend the meeting; only some did. / None of them attended the meeting; only some did. Clearly the second sentence is absurd.

Contact the writer at ksyadurajan@yahoo.com

Maxims & Observations of Kay S. Wye.
We pay taxes when we make money. But we don’t make money to pay taxes.