Do sentences like 'They had just had lunch' or 'She had just had a baby' sound weird in English? I’m asking because in my native language, that kind of repetition feels really awkward.

It’s correct for the past perfect tense, but I would use a contraction and say “They’d just had lunch.”

They can be a bit clumsy when written and the use case is somewhat limited, but when used in natural speech in the right context, those sentences aren't remotely awkward. The repetition is just an artifact of "have" being used in two different ways, as an auxillary verb and as a main verb. It's not really a repetition at all, to be honest. Just a coincidence, like "give her her coat" has a repeated word, but "give him his coat" doesn't.

In spoken English the first "had" is generally spoken quickly (with the vowel becoming more of a schwa) or (more often) contracted: "They'd just had lunch." It doesn't sound as repetitive as it looks when you write it out.

Ever come across the had had had... sentence: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_while\_John\_had\_had\_had\_had\_had\_had\_had\_had\_had\_had\_had\_a\_better\_effect\_on\_the\_teacher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher) While the sentence is pretty crazy the repetition in "John had had a cold" doesn't feel particularly weird.

In English this is the past perfect tense and means that the action was already completed before the time you’re talking about. So for your baby example, if someone asked why someone didn’t come to the office Christmas party, you might say “She had just had a baby” to explain that the action of having a baby that happened a long time ago is the reason she wasn’t there. Or for your your lunch example, if you met someone coming out of a restaurant, they might say “we just had lunch here.” But if, much later, you asked why you saw them near that restaurant they might say, “we had just had lunch there” to explain that the lunch was completed a while ago, not in the time you’re immediately talking about.

It's a past-of-past construction, but perfectly normal. "They had just had lunch when the fire broke out in the kitchen" "She had just had a baby when her husband got that promotion." It relates two past events in time.

The “just” is an adverb that emphasizes how recent the action happened and “had had” is past perfect/pluperfect of “to have,” meaning you would only using this tense when you are talking about a past event before another past event took place. Therefore, they could sound off if there’s no other reference to a past event that would’ve taken place after the “had had.” “They had just had lunch.” They had had lunch before what? “They had just had lunch three hours before *I went to see them*.” “They had just had a baby” they had had a baby before what? “They had just had their baby when the hospital asked them for their billing information.” Without something to designate that the option happened before another (usually by usage of a subordinate clause) it would be appropriate to use simple past or past perfect instead. The repetition of “had had” sounds strange only because that tense is being used less and less in nonprofessional or informal settings nowadays (at least in the US), and the expressions “to have a baby” is less formal than “to give birth” or “to birth”, so the register of past perfect in conjunction with the lower register phrasal verb like “have a baby” could sound awkward.

It sounds normal, but only if there's some more recent other situation or action you are talking about. If you only want to mention that they just had lunch or she just had a baby, you wouldn't add the first "had". You are merely stating that those events happened recently. You add the first had to place the action prior to some other event. They didn't want to eat with us because they had just had lunch. She was on leave from work because she had just had a baby.

It's normal. English is weird.

Sounds natural. Specifically, the primary stress of the sentence falls on the word *just*.

Conversationally, they are very common. In formal, published text, many writers and editors will avoid it.

The first "had" is commonly made a contraction with the subject. E.g. "They'd just had lunch ", and "She'd just had a baby."

That is correct but often when spoken casually, you can shorten the first 'had' and not fully pronounce it - it is also written shortened sometimes (e.g.) 'They'd just had lunch' and 'she'd just had a baby' (with the 'd' sound made quite softly and similarly as it is said at the start of the word 'door' - they-duh, she-duh) Making the word shorter fixes the repetition a bit, but saying it fully is also normal (i'm from the UK)

In informal spoken language, we would often say "they'd just had lunch." But no, not weird as is.

Just is a peculiar word though, because it can mean recently and only. Why isn’t Pamela running in the office three-legged-race? She recently had a baby. She only had a baby.

100% natural.

so yes, it’s correct and used, BUT with both “had”s in there, it sounds like giving context for a separate event. “so we were living in Washington at the time, and she had just had a baby, and then…” (rest of the story) if the event happened recently, like if someone gave birth a week or two ago, then you’d remove the first “had” to place more emphasis on the time frame. “she just had a baby!” (she gave birth not long ago!) “they just had lunch, so they’re a little tired.” (they ate lunch very recently and it made them feel sleepy)

It sounds totally normal and fine to me

Grammatically correct but in everyday speech I would eliminate the first “had” for better flow.

It doesn't sound weird at all.

Not only do those sound OK, you can even make legitimate natural sentences with ‘had had’ in them. ‘He had had a busy night’. ‘They had had a lot of trouble with the neighbours.’

Totally fine. Sometimes it's even correct to say "had had".

Very normal, very commonly used in speech and writing.

There's a YouTube linguistics professor who made a fantastic video about this.  When spoken, there's no repetition. The two "had"s are typically pronounced differently, the first one unstressed with schwa, and the second with the full vowel.  If anyone's interested I can try to dig up the link.

No. Wait until you see a sentence that actually uses "had" twice in a row.

Putting *just* just before the main verb *(see what I did there?)* indicates something happened very recently, or it is in very close proximity to the other agent of the sentance (as I did at the very beginning of this comment).

Charlie and Bill were asked to choose between using “had” or “had had” in a sentence. Charlie, while Bill had had “had,” had had “had had.” “Had had” had had a better effect on the teacher. This is a quote that’s often used to demonstrate how utterly ridiculous the English language is, because it literally repeats the word “had” 11 times in a row, and still makes perfect sense.

Nope. It actually doesn't even sound repetitive to native speakers (or at least not to me), because "had" is being used in different ways.

We don’t even notice those structure words. They’re like scaffolding for the important content words, which carry the real meaning of the utterance.

Very normal, but usually a contraction in speaking, they'd, she'd

No, you’re good, those are fine. Sometimes “had” and “that” stack in weird repetitive ways, I promise it’s not a glitch.

This is the past perfect, which is formed with the past tense of the verb “have,* which is “had” and the past participle. In any other case, it works smoothly. It can seem odd only when the second verb is also “have,” since the past participle is also “had.” *He had had lunch* is about the same as *he had eaten lunch.”

They do sound funny so I would never say any of those. I'd say "They'd just eaten lunch" and "she had just given birth" to avoid the weirdness. However they are grammatically correct. Just not necessary.

That’s unfortunately the only way to express those ideas in English. We’re also forced to use “had had” in some cases! For example “She had had the walls painted green.” Which means “In the past, she commissioned someone else to paint the walls green”

Use the contraction. ‘They’d just had lunch’.

Not only are they natural, they don't really sound that repetitive. For one, at least in my accent, I pronounce the two 'had's slightly differently in a sentence like this, because 'had just' works more like a stock phrase than two words. Secondly, and this is going to be confusing, and it's been a long time since whatever grade we learned the specifics in, but in essence these are two different words. The first 'had' is a helper verb, and makes something happen in the past and be completed, but it needs a main verb when used this way. Compare 'they had just dined' and 'they had just welcomed a child.' The second is a regular past tense verb that means have as in possess, or in broader senses like you used here, eat something, give birth, experience, etc. You can also say 'she just had a baby's or 'they just had lunch,' but these sentences imply that this is all happening right now. The sentences you said imply you are telling a story in the past, doesn't have to be a distant past, but it is a past. Compare: 'I cant believe she ran a marathon, she just had a baby' (Very recent baby,  VERY recent marathon)  'last year, Mary came in first in the marathon, and she had just had a baby!' (marathon is over, birth is even more over) 'They just had lunch, so we're just meeting up for drinks' (very recent lunch, incipient drinks) 'they had just had lunch, so they didnt eat anything at the party' (lunch is over, party is over)

The second one sounds weird to me, but only because having a baby can be quite a prolonged event, so it seems odd to refer to it as a single thing that just happened. But, grammatically, both are fine.

This would be frowned upon in written English but is pretty common in spoken English. Somewhat based on dialect, but people from anywhere might use this construction in speech.

Why would it sound weird, when it’s correct? It’s a legitimate verb tense known as the past perfect. We say I had had, in French they say j’avais eu, in German it’s ich hatte gehabt. It’s typically used with reference to two events in the past, one of which happened before the other. “We had just had supper, when I got the call with the good news.” “She had just had a baby when she found out that her husband lost his job.”

You’d swallow the h on the first ”had”. - She ad just had a baby - She’d just had a baby. Where I’m from anyway.

I guess it depends on how you’re using it. Both of these sentences would sound better with the first ‘had’ removed, but there are situations where the first had is important to include. But maybe in those cases you can contract the first ‘had’, for example, ‘They’d just had lunch’.

Had had is a completely correct grammatical construct in English. Why you ask? Because English is 6 languages in a Trenchcoat pretending to make sense

Short answer, no. Both sentences sound fine and native speakers use them without thinking about it. Long answer is that these two instances of “had” usually sound different. The first “had” in this construction is most often used in its reduced form - either with a Schwa vowel or contracted to they’d/she’d - and the second “had” cannot be reduced or contracted. Saying it like this will both sound more natural and potentially help it feel less repetitive for you when you use it.

You can change it to "she just had lunch"/"she just had a baby" and it would be fine. It's grammatically correct, but, you're right, it's repetetive. Although having "she had just had a baby"/"she had just had lunch" changes the time frame of when the events occurred.

They're slightly awkward for conversation, but that's not because they're completely wrong, just a little off. At least in conversational English, when your have a situation like that, you'd use contractions rather than the whole words. For example "They'd just had lunch." It's, in practice, identical. You just have the "ha" of the first had tucked and hidden. With that said, in Academic/Formal English (ie, any sort essay or report writing) you typically want to avoid contractions, but then again, you'll rarely be in a situation, when using academic English, where is really a problem. 

Honestly mate, you are the gift that keeps on giving. I can’t believe that you aren’t doing a bit. But please, do tell me where this gold standard of English, where “had” and “the” only have one pronunciation comes from? Where sounding stilted and unnatural is preferable to understandability and flow. Which other words only have one pronunciation? Do you deny that verb and noun forms of the same word can sound different?

You can use contractions to make it look and sound less weird: “They’d just had lunch” / “She’d just had a baby”.

Not really. It’s just the past perfect tense doing its thing - helping us recognize that one action in the past was completed before another action in the past. English is weird, and that’s okay.

If she had the baby recently, you must say: She has just had a baby..... If you are talking about a situation in the past , it is possible to say: she had just had a baby....but you need to say something after that, for instance: " She had just had a baby when her husband died.... Both situations (having a baby ) and husband dead, were in the past. Only that 1 happened before the other...1st the husband died and then she had the baby

Lots of people saying where the stress falls but it’s variable depending on meaning/emphasis.

The funny thing is when reading that title the first time my brain blanked out the double had and I was confused what the issue was

Nah. It does *look* a little awkward if the hads are immediately next to each other, like “She had had a baby.” But if there’s something in between them it both looks and sounds fine.

OP sentences are awkward. I would say that is VERY uncommon usage. 98% of the time you would just remove the first “had”.