"I have done it" vs "I've been had done it"

[sophie]

A more characteristic example likely would be "you gone learn today" etc.

It's either:

you gon learn today (simple future)

you gone ('n) learned today (simple past x2)

or

you done learned today (past perfect)

 

[Gori the Grey]

Tim's not wrong in his repeated insistence that we all regularly speak what would if written down read as gibberish, and are yet routinely understood by our interlocutors.

But if we are to answer Hygro's question as to whether there is effectively a difference in meaning between two particular verbal formulations, we need to get as clearly in mind as we can what those two verbal formulations are.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I repeat:

I am often repetitive.

That is all, for now.

But I may mention it again later.

 

[warpus]

How is it 'incoherent'?

"I have been had done it" is incoherent, is what I meant.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"I have been had done it" is incoherent, is what I meant.

In writing? Sure. In speech? I assert that it would be understood just fine and therefore would be coherent, because it would convey the information intended. Listeners process the information out of what you say, they don't actually listen to what you say...for the most part.

 

[warpus]

If somebody said that to me, I would think that they are stuttering or accidentally inserted a word or two. I would have no idea what they are on about.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Try the experiment I suggested earlier.

 

[BenitoChavez]

I'm going to perform an experiment. I'm going to try to use this phrase in real life and see how people respond. For science!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm going to perform an experiment. I'm going to try to use this phrase in real life and see how people respond. For science!

Go ye forth, bold scientist. Just slip 'been had' in front of random verbs throughout the day, without putting any special emphasis on it, and keep track of how frequently it produces any sort of hitch in communication.

My hypothesis is supported by a result substantially less than half the time...if you manage the not emphasizing it part. That will probably take some practice though.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Be sure to use the past participle form of irregular verbs though, too. I been had sung, for I sang.

 

[warpus]

Try the experiment I suggested earlier.

Sorry, how? By reading it out loud? I tried that, and nope, still gibberish. I'd equate it to something like:

"I've had been store gone buy bread be buying in no car gone home walk."

I can pull meaning out of it, but it doesn't flow.

 

[sophie]

Be sure to use the past participle form of irregular verbs though, too. I been had sung, for I sang.

Gotta love dem Starkeverben.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Tim's not wrong in his repeated insistence that we all regularly speak what would if written down read as gibberish, and are yet routinely understood by our interlocutors.

I never do that.
Sure, sometimes I drop some words that strictly speaking should be there, but I never add a bunch of words to make it convoluted.

 

[Gori the Grey]

^You might be surprised. Ask someone to whom you speak often some time to record you unawares.

But though I believe Tim's principle is generally valid, I think the formulation Hygro has provided us is unusually convoluted, and I'm willing to wager that it will draw people's attention in Benito's experiment: "What?" "Why do you keep talking in that weird way?"

People let a lot slip in speech that would sound baffling if transcribed. But it's the same kind of stuff everyone's gotten used to. Sentences that trail out unfinished because both parties to the conversation know where the sense is trending. Ideas that depend for their meaning on tone of voice, or facial expression, or gesture. Fragments appended as an afterthought, but to a sentence fresh enough in both parties' minds that the connection can be made. Breaking off a sentence and backing up to begin it differently, so as to get a better start on what one means to say.

But this isn't any of those; it's an unfamiliar expression that I think will call attention to itself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sorry, how? By reading it out loud? I tried that, and nope, still gibberish. I'd equate it to something like:

"I've had been store gone buy bread be buying in no car gone home walk."

I can pull meaning out of it, but it doesn't flow.

I meant this one:

Next time you are on your way to the store, tell someone "I [mumble mumble] store". Make it under your breath, but go ahead and actually say "mumble mumble". I'll give you even odds that whoever you tell that you are going to the store that way will not question what you said, and if another person asks them "where's Warpus?" they will be told correctly that you went to the store.

In speaking 'coherent' is a much different thing than it is in writing, because it gets processed fast in one pass so the listener is much more helpful than a reader is.

 

[Hygro]

I started this thread wanting to see if people understood the second as the same as the first or if there was a nuanced connotation that give a more specific meaning—as it does. Chiefly, the second sentence denotes the experience of completion rather than the completion itself. More specifically: it denotes a level of "over-it-ness" and finality to that person's relationship with that which they have done.

What I did not expect was how so many of you said it was gibberish (it's not) or didn't understand it (all you non-Americans get a pass). Not only do lots of people, myself included, employ English as introduced by this thread, but you see it on TV and in movies so it shouldn't be new

 

[Gori the Grey]

Give some examples, Hygro. Not just the general structure as illustrated with vague words like "do."

Give some examples from TV or movies, esp--something we can all listen to.

Where are you hearing this? I've never heard anything like it. And I watch a good bit of TV.

 

[Camikaze]

I'll join the crowds not understanding the second phrase. If I were one to insist on some 'objectively correct' English I'd say this is not it, but who knows, perhaps it's considered entirely valid in some sort of new and unique Californian sub-dialect.

Try the experiment I suggested earlier.

I'm not sure how applicable your suggested experiment is, because the phrase we're concerned with doesn't include a clearly identifiable object like 'store'. In the absence of that object, the focus of the sentence moves to the verbs, from which a clear meaning can't be deciphered. I suspect if we knew what 'it' is the sentence would become a little clearer.

But even omitting verbs as you suggest, would you be returning from the store, or going to the store, or just commenting on the store? Your subsequent presence or absence might imply one or the other, but not the sentence itself. It's not conveying a clear meaning.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How is it 'incoherent'?

I went to the store.

I been to the store.

I been done gone to the store.

I be to the store.

I gone to the store.

All 'correctness' aside, every one of those has a pretty clear meaning revolving around a trip to the store, because the only words in the sentence that convey any real information are 'I' and 'store'. The rest is just standard or non standard construction to support those two words.

I understand the bolded sentences. The first one is correct. The second is either something someone unfamiliar with standard English grammar might say, or it's a shorthand way of saying "I have been to the store." The third is something I might expect from a line of Hoss' dialogue in a Bonanza episode, if the word "been" were omitted. The other two are nonsense.

Next time you are on your way to the store, tell someone "I [mumble mumble] store". Make it under your breath, but go ahead and actually say "mumble mumble". I'll give you even odds that whoever you tell that you are going to the store that way will not question what you said, and if another person asks them "where's Warpus?" they will be told correctly that you went to the store.

Actually, none of the words are necessary except "store."

Timsup2nothing: "Where's warpus?"
Valka: "Store."

That should be all the words necessary to convey that warpus went to the store. Of course it doesn't convey the exact time frame, since we don't know if warpus is at the store at the time of our conversation. He might not have arrived yet, or he might have already left.

In writing? Sure. In speech? I assert that it would be understood just fine and therefore would be coherent, because it would convey the information intended. Listeners process the information out of what you say, they don't actually listen to what you say...for the most part.

If someone said Hygro's sentences to me, my first reaction would be "huh?"

If somebody said that to me, I would think that they are stuttering or accidentally inserted a word or two. I would have no idea what they are on about.

Maybe it's one of those Canadian things? It's gibberish to me, too.

Sorry, how? By reading it out loud? I tried that, and nope, still gibberish. I'd equate it to something like:

"I've had been store gone buy bread be buying in no car gone home walk."

I can pull meaning out of it, but it doesn't flow.

You went to the store to buy bread, and walked home because you don't have a car. Is that what you meant?

I wouldn't have a hope of figuring that out if it wasn't written down in front of me.

I started this thread wanting to see if people understood the second as the same as the first or if there was a nuanced connotation that give a more specific meaning—as it does. Chiefly, the second sentence denotes the experience of completion rather than the completion itself. More specifically: it denotes a level of "over-it-ness" and finality to that person's relationship with that which they have done.

What I did not expect was how so many of you said it was gibberish (it's not) or didn't understand it (all you non-Americans get a pass). Not only do lots of people, myself included, employ English as introduced by this thread, but you see it on TV and in movies so it shouldn't be new

Thank you. I have never heard such a mess of words in RL. I don't watch much TV anymore, and about the most casual it ever gets with regard to language is the CBS reality shows.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure how applicable your suggested experiment is, because the phrase we're concerned with doesn't include a clearly identifiable object like 'store'. In the absence of that object, the focus of the sentence moves to the verbs, from which a clear meaning can't be deciphered. I suspect if we knew what 'it' is the sentence would become a little clearer.

But even omitting verbs as you suggest, would you be returning from the store, or going to the store, or just commenting on the store? Your subsequent presence or absence might imply one or the other, but not the sentence itself. It's not conveying a clear meaning.

Conceded. Hygro I think was using a pronoun to make it sort of a general case presentation, and I put in store but removed the verb. Try I [mumble] go [mumble] store...or anything else you may do, or whatever destination you may have. The point is that the listener will discern the information and as long as the filler isn't grossly distracting they are going to ignore it anyway. Readers are much more critical because they have more time.

I was talking to someone about this over lunch and they suggested this as a somewhat related example.