Talk:had

to be had

We need a definition for the usage in "you've been had", which doesn't seem to appear in other tenses. — Hippietrail 09:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No other tenses? You've been had, you were had, they will be had, you will have been had... "have been had" and "were had" are the most common, but others are possible--Vladisdead 09:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes of course, I guess I meant it doesn't occur in the active but only in the passive. — Hippietrail 10:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alternate had had

An alternative sentence could be He once had several operations previously. You could improve on any alternate sentence if one does not like to use "had had" or "that that". Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

had had sounds perfectly fine. Why would you want to avoid it? Besides, He once had several operations previously sounds very ungrammatical to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with not adding a had had definition? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessary. It's just two different senses of had in a row, making the pluperfect of have. We don't need any entry for that any more than we need entries for had been or had gone or had wondered or anything else. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

be had

Which entry is correct? be had --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Derived terms: had better/best

Which meaning of had is used in had better/best then? --Backinstadiums (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing.

The entry for had better simply says that it's idiomatic. And the etymology there refers only to better! So maybe that's a way of indicating that it doesn't correspond to any particular meaning of had???

(Then again, had best has no etymology and isn't tagged as an idiom!)

I'm not sure what the policy would be on Wiktionary of inventing (back-forming?) a meaning of a word from an idiomatic phrase. Evidently the meaning is something like definitely should, for the [best/better]. I'd feel more comfortable recommending inclusion of a definition under had if I could think of any other usage in this vein. But had worse or had worst, for instance, aren't familiar to me.

Is better or best ever elided? (Or should I say "ellipted?") As in You had not leave me waiting there in the middle of the night, or else you'll be sorry! I can't vouch for it — just speculating. But if so, that would definitely warrant inclusion of a definition under had.

—DIV (1.145.91.247 03:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC))

RFD discussion: June–July 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

had

RFD supposed adjective senses:

1. (Should we delete⁽⁺⁾ this sense?) (informal) Duped.

   We've been had.

2. (obsolete) Available.
   • 1485, William Caxton, The Preface to Le Morte d'Arthur:

     Which be not had in our maternal tongue.

(1) is not an adjective but the passive form of "To trick, to deceive" at have. To my eye, (2) looks like the passive form of the sense "To obtain" at have, but I stand to be corrected if there is some different kind of usage going on here. Mihia (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 1 per proponent, abstain on 2. PUC ~ 2A02:2788:A4:205:3CC8:9F5F:53CB:FDCF 19:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What does ‘PUC’ mean? Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Overlordnat1: A living legend. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I assume it's User:PUC not logged in.

If this is deleted, the quote should be moved somewhere. DonnanZ (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete both, the quote should be moved to an appropriate Middle English definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete both. Imetsia (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)