why do authors use double words when writing--->such as: had had or other such double words? not necessary?

Answer 1

It really has nothing to do with tense. It is actually writing in the passive voice - and you are right quite often it is not necessary. It may be grammatically correct, but it is superfluous. He had a few drinks would be much stronger. Too many writers- starting with JK Rowling - write in the passive voice. Pax- C

Answer 2

It's a form of the past tense. Its easier to know about different tenses if you're learning another language, but i'll try my best to explain.

"He had had a lot of work to do"
This means that in the he did have a lot of work to do in the past, but doesn't now.
eg. "in his previous job, he had had a lot of work to do."

"He had a lot of work to do"
This is still in the past but in the more current past. ie. something that has just happened.
"he couldn't go out for dinner; he had a lot of wrok to do"

It's hard to explain but its like the difference between
"He rode his bike"
and
"He had ridden his bike"

Hope that helped a bit :D

Answer 3

It makes it final. Saying "he had a few drinks" leaves the action incomplete -- for all the reader knows, he could still have them. Saying "he had had a few drinks" makes it clear that he had them at one point but doesn't anymore.

Answer 4

It's not that that question you have asked is incorrect, but if you had had a more in-depth instruction in English verb conjugation you would understand it is a necessary repetition.

Answer 5

Simple rule of thumb --> if the author can make it work, it works....

CHeeRioS

Answer 6

its cuz its GRAMMAR. its grammatically correct. you cant just say he had another drink...well i guess u can, but in writing, its 'he had had' its like past tense....cuz the guy "had" (past tense) had a drink , or sumthing like that.

Answer 7

you mean like had had a few drinks already or something like that? it's cause it's grammarically correct.