Another word for i have done

Hello,

Something I’ve been noticing is that people have been saying things like I’d have done / I had have done (or pronounced I had of done , and not meaning «I would have done»)

What I understand is that we have :

I do / I am doing (present)
I did / I have done / I was doing (past)
I had done (which is … the pluperfect tense is that ?)
I had have done (the strange thing I keep hearing)

So what is going on here ? Is it just plain wrong or could this be another tense altogether that’s being made up, which goes even further back in time ? Or has anyone else actually noticed ?

In normal English:
“If I had known that I would have done it.”

This becomes, in rapid speech:
“If I’d known that I would’ve done it.” Or “I’d’ve done it.”
Which some people interpret to be, and sometimes write as:
“If I’d known that I’d of done it.”

Mangle it a bit more, and you might think it was “I had ‘ve done it”.
And thus:
“I had have done it.”

Quite commonly, in rapid speech, people will put an superfluous ‘have’ in the If clause.
«If I had ‘ve done that, I woud ‘ve won Lotto”
Again in writing, sometimes
“If I had of done that, I would of won Lotto”
Then ‘over correct’ to “..I had have done …”

camaleon said:

I did / I have done / I was doing (past)
I had done

cual seria la traduccion al español

I’m tempted to answer you — but for a Spanish translation you should post in the Spanish forum.

I think this may happen as a result of someone with partial understanding trying to be a little more formal.
They want to «improve» on I’d have done …
… and «improve» I’d to I had, instead of I would.

Jad assures us in his post that this strange creature definitely does not mean I would have done.
It would be really helpful to have a real example of its use so that we can try to work it out. Right now, we’re coming up with possibilities.
Come back Jad — we need you

I think it’s simply a colloquialism. I use this superfluous ‘have/of’ myself. It’s difficult to say whether it’s a ‘have’ or an ‘of’ because the actual sound is more of a short ‘uh’. I would say it generally manifests itself in situations where I want to emphasise had rather than use I’d.

So…
“I wish I had done” becomes “I wish I ‘ad uh done (I wish I had have/of done)”
“If I had done” becomes “If I ‘ad uh done (If I had have/of done)”

When I say that I use it myself, I mean in speech… I wouldn’t write it!

Helicopta said:

I think it’s simply a colloquialism. I use this superfluous ‘have/of’ myself. It’s difficult to say whether it’s a ‘have’ or an ‘of’ because the actual sound is more of a short ‘uh’. I would say it generally manifests itself in situations where I want to emphasise had rather than use I’d.
So…
“I wish I had done” becomes “I wish I ‘ad uh done (I wish I had have/of done)”
“If I had done” becomes “If I ‘ad uh done (If I had have/of done)”

Now that is interesting. This seemed completely alien to me until I read the red bit. Putting the I wish in front made this very familiar indeed, especially in the slightly alternative form:
I wish I had’ve done.
I wonder …
Listen to this conversation between wise person and disciple.

A) I understand that you went out yesterday without clean underwear and were knocked down by a bus, is that right?
B) That is true, oh wise one.
A) But didn’t you heed the good advice I give you every morning?
B) No, oh wise one,
A) If you had done, you would’ve made sure you were wearing clean underwear before you went out.
B) Woe is me, oh wise one; I heard your good advice and I know I should have heeded it. Now I wish I had’ve done, for they discovered my guilty secret in the hospital and reported my sin to the local TV station.

The third red bit seems to be taking the first two bits and inappropriately joining them.

Please note: I am not suggesting that this usage is correct, only that it is common — and I am wondering how it came into being.

— I wish I had done a study abroad program in Florinapolis about 10 years ago.
— You may have had sinned if you had had.

Is this correct?
What is the difference between: ‘you may have sinned if you had had’ if it’s correct to respond?

How odd-sounding that is; I’ve never heard it in my life. What function does the preposition of serve, and how would it be used in context of a conversation?

As indicated in a previous post, of in this case is a respelling of ‘ve, with the result that in the Random House Dictionary, Unabridged, here, and in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary here, it is labeled as a verbal auxiliary in an entry separate from the preposition, with M.-W. adding, correctly in my opinion, that it is nonstandard.

Addition: I see that the Oxford English Dictionary also has of as a verb, and identified as an auxiliary, in a separate entry from the preposition.

You are likely to commit a sin if you do a study abroad (but in the past).

Still not clear?

what about:
you may have sinned if you had done a study abroad
?

you are likely to commit a sin if you do a study abroad (but in the past)

still not clear?

There is no reason for «had» in this case. «You may have sinned if you have studied abroad.» The «had» would indicate something that happened in the past before the other action. These actions happened during the same time period in the past.

(Capitalization is not optional here, vento11… «You are likely to commit a sin…»)

You are likely to commit a sin if you do a study abroad (but in the past).

Still not clear?

Ah — I think what you’re looking for is «You might have sinned if you had studied abroad».

So your conversation would be:
— I wish I had done a study-abroad program in Florinapolis about 10 years ago.
— You might have sinned if you had.

«To sin» is rather formal by the way, but it could work if the second person was joking

I’ve just found this entry and I reckon it could be of use here.

Another controversial issue is the insertion of have where it is superfluous, as, for example, I might have missed it if you hadn’t have pointed it out (rather than the standard … if you hadn’t pointed it out). This construction has been around since at least the 15th century, but only where a hypothetical situation is presented (e.g., statements starting with if). More recently, there has been speculation among grammarians and linguists that this insertion of have may represent a kind of subjunctive and is actually making a useful distinction in the language. However, it is still regarded as an error in standard English.

New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition.

I stumbled across a nice confused variation-on-the-theme today, in a short story by Edith Wharton (Mr Jones, 1928).
Well, actually, it’s a nice variation following a ‘classic’ had have + past part.
The speaker is a rustic English woman (obviously it’s not Edith Wharton herself):

«Oh, my lady, it was too unfortunate. If only your ladyship had have said … poor Georgiana had ought to have seen; but she never DID have her wits about her, not for answering the door.»

Just thought I’d mention it.

Please help a poor non-native speaker clear up this confusion. I said to someone- ‘call of duty 2 is the game that made me fall in love with the fps (first person shooter) genre…..(I continued)…
«Even though I had/ I played other fps games before call of duty 2.»

I’ve learned that we should use ‘I had’ in such context where there are two past incidents. But which one’s more colloquial?