A long time back an article was published in a newspaper with the heading "Nehru and Menon". By mistake the spacing between the words was not adequate. Then next day a corrigendum was published by the same newspaper:
"The spacing between Nehru and "and" and "and" and Menon was not adequate."
So a you can see a sentence with "and" repeated 5 times consecutively without grammatical error.
===========================================================
It's generally going to be a very artificial sentence.
Twice is quite possible, for example: "She said 'and' and he said 'or'."
3: "She had to choose between 'and' and 'and/or."
4: "She had to choose from 'both... and, 'and' and 'and/or'."
5: "She had to choose from the following options: 'both... and' and 'and' and 'and/or'."
There is a well-known riddle along these lines that has as its answer perhaps the least artificial-sounding sentence that could use "and" five times in a row. In it, someone has a sign made that includes the word "and" in it. For instance the sign might read: "Parts and Service." The customer then want to change the sign, and so they tell the sign-makers something like the following: "I need you to put more space between 'Parts' and 'and' and 'and' and 'Service'." It's plausible this sentence could be spoken in real life.
That that that that that teacher used was grammatically correct.
How about 8 times?
I already told you that: that that "that" (that "that" that that teacher used) was grammatically correct.
The pub took delivery of a new sign 'The Horse and Groom'. While it was still waiting to be hung the manager spotted an error. He rang the sign-writer with the information "The gaps between 'Horse' and 'and', and 'and' and 'Groom', are different".
With due acknowledgement to the chap who also provided the Buffaloe buffaloe ... (??) reference and the ... that that that that that ... sentence.
The pub the the Horse and Groom was having its sign replaced. After the work had been done, the manager spotted a mistake. He rand the builders and said " The gaps between horse and and and and and groom are not the same distance"
Read more: What_word_can_be_used_in_one_sentence_five_times_in_a_row_and_still_be_grammatically_correct
You should not write a sentence with the word 'that' repeated 5 timesconsecutively Not only would that be very wordy but it wouldn't make much sense.
I would even stay clear of reusing the word 'that' repetitively throughout multiple sentences because this too will grow tiring and aggravating for the reader.
Take the following example and understand my meaning:
"My brother doesn't like that cat, and that cat doesn't like my brother. That dislike between that cat and my brother doesn't bother me because that cat and my brother like me."
It would be a complete sentence if it was grammatically correct. Exceptional times require exceptional measures. (The verb should match the subject, which is plural.)
It may be grammatically correct, but it is a logical absurdity. more/fewer is about counting more/less is about amount … so… no, it is not correct.
It is grammatically correct in that all the parts of it are properly arranged according to their parts of speech and function.However, it has no meaning. The word 'hypothetical' refers to 'hypothesis.' which is a statement proposed as an explanation of something, like a theory. You can't say that a person is like that. Those are characteristics that can't belong to a person.It is perfectly possible to form a grammatical sentence that has no meaning. Chomsky's famous sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" was composed as an example of that. Your sentence is another.
No. You would say: Why does every one of us do stupid things at times?
They have seen rainbows in the sky many times in April.
This sentence is grammatically correct but does not have much meaning.
In a line of dialogue in a story. Or if you are quoting a person. So if you were to say and 7 times consecutively, and i quoted you on paper, it would be grammatically correct.
8 times. I already told you that: that that "that" (that "that" that that teacher used) was grammatically correct.
I think that this is a riddle; that this is too easy; that something must have been left out of the question; that I should not even bother; that the author of the question doesn't know how easy it is; thatthis answer is grammatically correctly; that this answer is done.
It would be a complete sentence if it was grammatically correct. Exceptional times require exceptional measures. (The verb should match the subject, which is plural.)
not grammatically correct, but mathematically correct
Yes. Although this is not a very common phrase at all, it is still grammatically correct. This phrase is depicted as an old phrase which was used in medieval times, this is why you may hear it being used in medieval-based movies.
No, the sentence is not grammatically correct. It should be: "I came to your office so many times but I can't find you."
It would be a complete sentence if it was grammatically correct. Exceptional times require exceptional measures. (The verb should match the subject, which is plural.)
It may be grammatically correct, but it is a logical absurdity. more/fewer is about counting more/less is about amount … so… no, it is not correct.
I would say "beaten".
Despite the fact that money was counted three times, it still fell short of the correct total.