I don’t normally repost things from Language Log, figuring that most Hat readers also check the Log, but this is so bizarre to me I have to bring it to the attention of those who don’t. Lori Levin writes: “Some of my students say ‘will have had gone’ sounds completely normal to them, and some won’t accept it at all.” Mark Liberman, who posted it, adds some examples from the web:
I’m hoping someone will have had gone through a similar situation and will have some good words of advice for you.
A very large percentage of my viewers reading this will have had gone through an experience where they had to go through sending in mail in rebates to get a substantial discount.
If not for your witty remarks i will have had gone insane
Et cetera. This, for me, is far worse than “I’m done work”; it sounds like some bizarre parody of English verbal constructions. And yet for some substantial number of English speakers, it’s perfectly normal. In the comments to the Log post, linguist Andrew Carnie (aka Aindriú Ó Cearnaigh, Anndra Mac a’ Chearnaigh) says:
Dan Siddiqi, Maria Biezma and I have been working on the non-standard had+have construction recently. Dan and I are both native speakers of dialects with this construction. Dan and I have a paper appearing in the next issue of Snippets. We argue there that the syntax and morphology of the first “have” shows that it behaves entirely like a modal. Our work with Maria is currently on going so I don’t want to give away the punch line, but we’re investigating the semantics of this construction and how it differs from other counterfactuals, in particular about the semantic contributions of the second “have” which seem to go above and beyond those of mere aspect. In particular, there are some very strange, but surprisingly consistent, ways in which this construction behaves with respect to presuppositional cancellation.
As usual, my questions are: Do any of you find this construction acceptable? Do you use it yourself?