<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body> Ravi, I think you're right. Looking at the following: --I wish I could have had the guts to tell him he was wrong. --I wish I had had the guts to tell him he was wrong. --I would I would have had the guts to tell him he was wrong. It looks to me like "had had" does the job just fine. Joanna ravi wrote: <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid43906DBD.5090902@kreise.org"> <pre wrap="">At around 2/12/05 8:54 am, Carrol Cox wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">"W. Kiernan" wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">ravi wrote: > Doug Henwood wrote: > > > After Packer's talk, I politely asked him if he > > regretted his support for the war. He did. "I wish > > I would have had more information at the time," he > > told me. > > "Would have had" -- what's that called in grammar: past continuous? I think it's something like a past imperfect. Between "had had," "could have had," and "would have had" I hear distinct shades of meaning aroud the difference between "can" and "will." "Had had" is impersonal. "Could have had" implies that having that information was impossible, i.e., not having it was nobody's fault. "Would have had" seems to put an agent who willfully held back information from Packer. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">I'm not sure of this interesting set of distinctions, but granting them, clearly "would have had" is the correct wording ... </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I don't know... "I wish I would have had" sounds just wrong to my ears... but you are the English professor... --ravi </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>