Forum: Author Hangout

That means she had already removed it

You're right. My mistake. I guess it was foreshadowing that his daughter would have to help him pee, whereas if the catheter was still in she wouldn't.

You're right. My mistake.

Another valid reason for not turning reader feedback on. 'D

The first line you quoted is past tense... 'she'd had to remove it this morning'

That means she had already removed it this morning,

It just dawned on me why I thought it was wrong.

It should be "she had." When I saw "she'd had" I assumed "had" should be "have."

"She'd have to remove it this morning" means it's still inside.

So there is an error anyway.

It should be "she had." When I saw "she'd had" I assumed "had" should be "have."

How does "she had had" translate to the present tense? Is this like a double negative equaling a positive, if you put something in a double post tense verb, it automatically becomes present tense? What happens if he's written "she have have", does that then automatically become "She did it in the distant past"?

Reading that, I wouldn't assume that she'd had makes a double had. I'd probably thing she would for she'd in that context, but then had should be have.

So you would assume something that makes no sense, attributing an error to the author rather than assume something that makes perfect sense in context?

Not sure I understand that.

How does "she had had" translate to the present tense?

I guess I would never use the contraction "she'd" for "she had." I read it as "she would."

So I thought it was "she would have" since "she would had" made no sense.

"She'd" may be used to mean either "she had" or "she would".

I agree. But there are certain contractions I wouldn't use. This is one of them so I automatically assumed it was "she would".

In case you're thinking that "would have to" is a future tense, not a present tense? The answer to that is 'sort of'. English grammar doesn't have real future tenses. It only has present and past tenses, with future tense meanings constructed by merely adding an auxiliary verb (e.g. will, going to, might) to the present tense.

"I will so have had fun at the party tonight, Mom!" ;D

My point of grammar is you cannot assume what "'d" means; you must wait until the it becomes clear whether the rest of the verb phrase has a present tense (it means "would") or a past tense (it means "had").

That's probably why I don't use "she'd" to be "she had."

For the fun of it, come up with a sentence using "where'd." Do it before you read further.

I bet it was "Where did…" But it can also be "Where had…" However, I doubt you'd never use it as "where had." If you do, the reader would probably stumble over it.

Same with "when'd." It can be either "when did" or "when had." I actually wouldn't contract either, but if I read it I would assume "when did."

ETA:

"Contractions belong in the delivery room, not in professional writing."—Oscar Wilde.

As for "where'd" and "when'd" ... I probably wouldn't stumble on those; I'm more like to puke on them instead. :-)

Even "where'd"?

"Where'd you go" is common.

"Where'd you go" is common.

It might be more common than "when'd" (which I've never encountered before) but it's hardly a 'common contraction'.

As for "where'd" and "when'd" ... I probably wouldn't stumble on those; I'm more like to puke on them instead.

I concur. Let's all gather at the local purgatorium and dump all over those uses. Seriously "when'd"? Who the hell would ever use such a term in a serious piece of writing? I understand that you're making a point, but creating abstract contractions just to argue a point is, well, pointless.

I understand that you're making a point, but creating abstract contractions just to argue a point is, well, pointless.

You missed the point I was making. Let's go back to "where'd."

That contraction could mean "where did" and "where had." I didn't even know it could mean "where had" until I read an article on contractions not to use (that's where "when'd" came from).

"Where'd you go" is something you'd hear (where did you go).

"Where'd you gone" is not (where had you gone).

My point was that just because there's a contraction for something, it doesn't mean you should use it. "When'd" is a great example. But so is "where'd" when the second word is "had." If you need to write "where had you gone," don't use a contraction.

I feel that way about "she'd." It's fine to use as "she would" but not "she had."

The sentence in the story is:

"And she said she'd had to remove the catheter this morning..."

Expand the contraction and it reads:

"And she said she had had to remove the catheter this morning..."

Why two "had"s? Why not simply, "And she said she had to remove the catheter this morning..."

And if "she'd" can be "she had," then does the following sentence make sense:

"And she said she'd to remove the catheter this morning..."

Does the above look right to you? If you expand "she'd" to "she had" it's correct, but not as a contraction. So why would anyone use "she'd" to mean "she had"? Even though it's a valid contraction.

That was my point. The "when'd" just emphasized that some valid contractions should not be used.

I feel that way about "she'd." It's fine to use as "she would" but not "she had."

In this case, I agree with Ross. While I'd be cautious about my approach, I wouldn't rule it out, since the major determinate regarding understanding the sentence is the attached very form. Declaring that you'd Never include a contraction means you pointedly avoid contractions for any scene occurring in the distant past, which seems unrealistic if you're discussing character dialogues.

And if "she'd" can be "she had," then does the following sentence make sense:

"And she said she'd to remove the catheter this morning..."

If you drop the unnecessary "to", your example sentence is entirely sensible and understandable (assuming you rewrote it as "And she said she'd removed the catheter this morning …"). But that's why I criticized your use of "she'd had", as it's obviously a contraction of "she had had", which should NEVER be included in a work of fiction! Rather than avoiding past-tense contractions entirely, how about if we simply decide to avoid insipid or stupid ones?

But that's why I criticized your use of "she'd had"

It wasn't mine. That's what was in the story. That's what threw me.

It wasn't mine. That's what was in the story. That's what threw me.

In that case, we should both criticize the initial line for being unclear and confusing, rather than publicly declaring that ALL past-perfect contractions are inherently invalid. It all depends upon the context, and is something that each author should be aware of. But they're no reason to avoid them if the context makes the meaning clear.

I cannot think of any situation where I would contract have when being used as a primary or phrasal verb.

That's what I've been saying. When I see "she'd" I read "she would."

I would not contract any form of have when it is being used as a main verb.

Maybe that's it.

"She'd missed curfew three times before the police came after her."

The above is a case where a contraction for "she had" makes sense to me, but I would not contract it because I'd want the "had" to stand out to make the tense perfectly clear.

Agreed. But would you agree this sounds pretty awful?

"She'd a curfew and missed it three times before the police came after her."

Yes. Awful. I would never write that. That was my point. Just because you can use a contraction doesn't mean you should.

In my example (curfew one), "She'd" there sounds okay. But it would be in something like a flashback (past perfect tense) so I'd want to make it crystal clear to the reader that I was going back in time. I'd want the "had" to jump out at them so I wouldn't bury it in a contraction.

"Contractions belong in the delivery room, not in professional writing."—Oscar Wilde.

Nice quote. I hadn't encountered that one before.

"Contractions belong in the delivery room, not in professional writing."—Oscar Wilde.

Which is why academic books are so damn boring. However, contraction belong in story telling, and every good story teller uses them.

"Contractions belong in the delivery room, not in professional writing."—Oscar Wilde.

Which is why academic books are so damn boring.

Except, Oscar Wilde was a Fictional novelist and didn't write 'boring' stories, although, given that he wrote then very early in the 19th century, he likely didn't include many contractions, which are mostly a 'modern' concession.

Oscar Wilde was a Fictional novelist

I never found one of his works I liked. Mind you, I found most 19th century authors boring as they often took 250 words to describe a room that could've been done in 25 words.

I never found one of his works I liked. Mind you, I found most 19th century authors boring as they often took 250 words to describe a room that could've been done in 25 words.

Whereas, in my case, I actually prefer the pre-1960s novels to the later, more 'modernized' writing styles, and have gone out of my way to write similar 'old style' stories.

To each their own. It merely accounts for why my stories aren't as popular as the more modern stories with much simpler language, not for how much my readers might thoroughly enjoy my stories as a result.

Just because styles change doesn't always make them an 'improvement' in the long run, it just means they're 'more acceptable' in the hear and now.

Whereas, in my case, I actually prefer the pre-1960s novels

most of my favorite authors wrote between 1920 and 1970, but they're 20th century authors, not 19th century authors.

It works because of the fixed order of components in verb phrases. However, any attempt to explain how it works would only confuse people here even more.

Yeah, we've all learned, rather painfully, just how pointless it is teaching budding and experienced authors how to string sentences together properly. :(

It should be "she had." When I saw "she'd had" I assumed "had" should be "have."

"She'd have to remove it this morning" means it's still inside. So there is an error anyway.

Absolutely not. In this context:

She had done it (She did this thing)

and

She had had to do it[She'd had] (Something forced her to do this thing)

Both would have been correct in context.

She'd have to (She would have to in the future) is NOT correct in context even if you assumed it would be or wanted it to be.

The error is STILL yours for assuming instead of reading what is there.

The error is STILL yours for assuming instead of reading what is there.

If you go back to the OP, Switch presented the sentence and then he also stated that shortly after there was a passage describing the catheter being removed.

Obviously the sentence was supposed to be future tense. In this case you need to read all of what was in the OP.

If you go back to the OP, Switch presented the sentence and then he also stated that shortly after there was a passage describing the catheter being removed.

If I said that I didn't mean it. In the later passage, there was no catheter. The daughter was holding his "spigot" (awful word for dick) to the urinal. Since I thought the catheter hadn't been removed yet I thought it was an error. But it was my error for not thinking the catheter had been removed previously.

You are right. Your passage didn't mention catheter. I read it too fast, thought it was going to be a description of the catheter being removed, and missed catheter not being mentioned. My error.