هل ممكن نجيب 3 is متتالية

The present simple/tense of "is"is"is".
واذا اردنا استخدام is is was
The past tense of "is"is "was"

Consider the following three sentences:
"What has to happen is is that the money has to come from somewhere."
"What I'm telling you is is that the economy's strong, it's getting stronger."
"The thing is is that the pickle selection on this menu is staggering."
The first is from Obama during a presidential debate, the second from a speech Bush II gave to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and the third from me during a late-night dinner at Jacob’s Pickles on 85th and Amsterdam in New York, but all adhere to the same basic structure. A set-up: The thing is. Followed by a pay-off: the pickle selection on this menu is staggering. The head-scratcher, of course, is the extra is, usually bound to a that, that insinuates itself between the setup and the payoff.
So just what is this construction? Most linguists call this doubled is ISIS, although it also appears in the literature as "Double-is," "Extra-is," "Double-be," and—should you prefer—the "Nonstandard Reduplicative Copula." And while linguists aren't yet in agreement about what need ISIS fills, or exactly how to classify it among the already Borgesian taxonomy of linguistic categories and subcategories, they have been tracking it for nearly 30 years and developing a number of theories, some of which make intuitive sense to me.
First off, let’s establish what ISIS is not. Surely, every once in a while you hear a sentence like this: What it is is a sour pickle. This is not a case of ISIS. Why? Because the double is in this sentence follows standard rules of syntax. What it is is (as it were) the subject of the sentence. Subjects need verbs; in this case, that verb happens to be is. But utter What I mean is is that we like pickled beets, and suddenly the normal rules of syntax are out the window. In the ISIS sentence, What I mean is the subject. It, too, needs a verb, which may very well be is. But it doesn't need two ises any more than it needs two of any other verb. According to standard rules of syntax, that is.

Today’s today’s podcast podcast is is about words that are doubled, such as “had had” and “is is.” Word’s grammar checker automatically alerts you when you repeat a word, but sometimes such doubling is allowed.
Acceptable Doubled Words
Sometimes in the normal course of writing or speaking, we have to double words because that’s just how the sentence comes out (1). We might say something like, “When I gave her her hat back, she thanked me.” Word does not approve, but the sentence is grammatical, if a bit awkward. Another example is “By the time I thought of it, it was too late.” In this case, you can put a comma between the “it”s to make the sentence easier to follow. Although these doubled words are correct, consider rewording your sentence if the repeated words bother you.
“Had Had”
Another double you might encounter is “had had,” and Frank from New York would like to know if it’s a correct phrase. It is correct, though it too might seem a bit awkward. To understand “had had,” we need to take a look at the present perfect and past perfect tenses. Take this sentence: “I have had too many chocolates today.” That sentence is in the present perfect tense. You use that tense when you’re talking about a past action that is continuing into the present. This sentence means that I started eating chocolates in the past but the chocolate eating is continuing up to the present. Present perfect tense uses “has” and “have” plus the past participle, as in “have had” and “has gone.”
Now let’s put the chocolate sentence in the past tense. To do so, we’ll use past perfect tense, which uses “had” plus the past participle, as in “had had” and “had gone.” So in the sentence “I had had too many chocolates, so I was too full to eat dinner yesterday,” two things happened in the past. First was eating chocolates; second was trying to eat dinner.
When you have two past-tense occurrences, you use past perfect to express the action that came first. If you are using the verb “to have” in past perfect, you need to use two “had”s.
Here’s another past perfect example: “I had eaten too many chocolates, so I was too full to eat dinner yesterday.” This is grammatically the same as the “had had” sentence but we used the verb “to eat” instead of “to have.” Although “had had” isn't wrong, “had eaten” definitely sounds better.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simplified parse tree
PN = proper noun
N = noun
V = verb
NP = noun phrase
RC = relative clause
VP = verb phrase
S = sentence
"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a grammatically correct sentence in American English, used as an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated linguistic constructs. It has been discussed in literature in various forms since 1967, when it appeared in Dmitri Borgmann's Beyond Language: Adventures in Word and Thought.
The sentence uses three distinct meanings of the word buffalo: the city of Buffalo, New York; the uncommon verb to buffalo, meaning "to bully or intimidate" or "to baffle"; and the animal itself, buffalo. Paraphrased, the sentence can be parsed to mean, "Bison from Buffalo, which bison from Buffalo bully, themselves bully bison from Buffalo."
The sentence is unpunctuated and uses three different readings of the word "buffalo". In order of their first use, these are:
• a. the city of Buffalo, New York, United States, which is used as a noun adjunct in the sentence and is followed by the animal;
• n. the noun buffalo (American bison), an animal, in the plural (*****alent to "buffaloes" or "buffalos"), in order to avoid articles.
• v. the verb "buffalo" meaning to outwit, confuse, deceive, intimidate or baffle.
The sentence is syntactically ambiguous; however, one possible parse (marking each "buffalo" with its part of speech as shown above) would be as follows:
Buffalo a buffalo n Buffalo a buffalo n buffalo v buffalo v Buffalo a buffalo n.
The sentence uses a restrictive clause, so there are no commas, nor is there the word "which," as in, "Buffalo buffalo, which Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo." This clause is also a reduced relative clause, so the word that, which could appear between the second and third words of the sentence, is omitted.
Thus, the parsed sentence reads as a claim that bison who are intimidated or bullied by bison are themselves intimidating or bullying bison (at least in the city of Buffalo – implicitly, Buffalo, NY):
1. Buffalo buffalo (the animals called "buffalo" from the city of Buffalo) [that] Buffalo buffalo buffalo (that the animals from the city bully) buffalo Buffalo buffalo (are bullying these animals from that city).
2. [Those] buffalo(es) from Buffalo [that are intimidated by] buffalo(es) from Buffalo intimidate buffalo(es) from Buffalo.
3. Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison in their community.
4. The buffalo from Buffalo who are buffaloed by buffalo from Buffalo, buffalo (verb) other buffalo from Buffalo.
5. Buffalo buffalo (main clause subject) [that] Buffalo buffalo (subordinate clause subject) buffalo (subordinate clause verb) buffalo (main clause verb) Buffalo buffalo (main clause direct object).

James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher" is an English sentence used to demonstrate lexical ambiguity and the necessity of punctuation,[1] which serves as a substitute for the intonation,[2] stress, and pauses found in speech.[3] In human information processing research, the sentence has been used to show how readers depend on punctuation to give sentences meaning, especially in the context of scanning across lines of text.[4] The sentence is sometimes presented as a puzzle, where the solver must add the punctuation.
The example refers to two students, James and John, who are required by an English test to describe a man who, in the past, had suffered from a cold. John writes "The man had a cold," which the teacher marks as being incorrect, while James writes the correct "The man had had a cold." Since James' answer was right, it had had a better effect on the teacher.
The sentence can be understood more clearly by adding punctuation and emphasis:
James, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.[5]
In each of the five "had had" word pairs in the above sentence, the first of the pair is in the past perfect form. The italicized instances denote emphasis of intonation, focusing on the differences in the students' answers, then finally identifying the correct one.

Will, will Will will Will Will's will?
Will (a person), will (future tense helping verb) Will (a second person) will (bequeath) [to] Will (a third person) Will's (the second person) will (a document)? (Someone asked Will 1 directly if Will 2 plans to bequeath his own will, the document, to Will 3.)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is is an English word sequence demonstrating syntactic ambiguity. It is used as an example illustrating the importance of proper punctuation.[1]
The sequence can be understood as any of three grammatically-correct sequences, each with at least three discrete sentences, by adding punctuation:
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is not. Is not "is that" it? It is.
The first two relate a simple philosophical proverb in the style of Parmenides that all that is, is, and that anything that does not exist does not. The phrase was noted in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.[2]
This phrase appeared in the 1968 American movie Charly, written to demonstrate punctuation to the main character Charly's teacher, in a scene to demonstrate that the surgical operation to make the character smarter had succeeded.[3]
Lexical ambiguity[edit]
Demonstrations of words which have multiple meanings dependent on context.
• In port, the portly porter ported the port, through the port port. (At the dock, the fat mover moved the wine, through the left window)
• Will, will Will will Will Will's will?[1]
• Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana
• Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. (Buffaloes from Buffalo, NY, whom buffaloes from Buffalo bully, bully buffaloes from Buffalo.)
• Rose rose to put rose roes on her rows of roses. (Robert J. Baran) (Rose [a person] rose [stood] to put rose [pink-colored] roes [fish eggs as fertilizer] on her rows of roses [flower].)
• James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher[2] (With punctuation: "James, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had'. 'Had had' had had a better effect on the teacher".)
• That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is(Grammatically corrected as: "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is").
• If it is it, it is it. If it is, it is it, it is! (If an object is the object, it is the object. If it is the object, then it is the object, it is!)
• A ship-shipping ship shipping shipping ships (A boat-delivering boat delivering delivery boats)
• He jarred ajar a jar of Jar-Jar's jarred charred chard and char giardiniera.
• That that exists exists in that that that that exists exists in.
• Better betters better betters better better better better betters better.
• Can can can can can can can can can can. ("Examples of the can-can dance that other examples of the same dance are able to outshine, or figuratively to put into the trashcan, are themselves able to outshine examples of the same dance". It could alternatively be interpreted as a question, "Is it possible for examples of the dance that have been outshone to outshine others?" or several other ways.)
• If police police police police, who police police police? Police police police police police police.[3] (If the police police is what you might call the people who supervise, monitor, and maintain order amongst the regular police force, then who, in turn, supervises the police police? The answer: the police police police. Hyphenating the noun constructs makes this easier to follow. Therefore, "[The] police-police [, that the] police-police-police police [, themselves] police [the] police", which means that "the police-police, who are policed by the police-police-police, are themselves responsible for policing the regular police force". In these sentences, the word police is used both as a collective noun ("police force") and as a verb ("to police [someone or something]"). This clause is also a reduced relative clause, so the word that, which could appear between the second and third words of the sentence, is omitted.)
• In a similar vein, Martin Gardner offered the example: "Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign' have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?"[4] This sentence is much easier to read because the writer placed commas between and and & and and and And, & and and and And & and And and and, & and And and and & and and and And, & and and and And & and And and and, & and And and and & and and and. (46 ands in a row).

thank you my dear