I’m delighted that you’ve done some pretty thorough research to back up your claim that no native English speaker would use a sentence like “I
will have had eaten by the time she arrives,” where “have had” is used to form the future perfect form of the verb “eat.” Evidently, this confirms that the three references you cited actually describe—but perhaps don’t necessarily prescribe—that for the future perfect form, the verbal auxiliary “had” in the sentence “I
will have had eaten by the time she arrives” is unnecessary, as pointed out by Forum member Davebox. Also, even if only for the sound of it, the use of such determining adverbs of time as “long” and “just” is indeed a much more elegant way to evoke that particular nuance for the future perfect. I would go as far as to recommend the use of those adverbs myself to writers or speakers to show that they are conversant with English.
What I must vehemently disagree with is the extremely polemical and, truth to be told, intellectually dishonest way you present your findings about the proper form of the future perfect. It’s definitely a stretch to say that
Merriam-Webster's,
Oxford,
American Heritage, and your first 12 Google hits for the “future perfect” don’t agree with me on its usage. Frankly, I would consider it a great honor and privilege if those sources of yours indeed went on record that they didn’t agree with me in particular, Jose Carillo, on this score. Of course, it’s obvious that none of them did. This rhetorical contention of yours is therefore obviously misleading and downright wrong, and I must say that it’s a more serious assault on English semantics than the use of the verbal auxiliary “had” in the contested future perfect phrase “will have had eaten” that you so vehemently condemn.
I would say that an even more reckless and dishonest contention is your claim that “It is an undeniable fact that no native English speaker would use such a sentence.” To begin with, as I showed in my earlier posting in reply to Davebox’s feedback, at least several native English speakers—among them qualified linguists—use and have gone out of their way in
Language Log and
LanguageHat.com to defend the form “will have had gone” as a grammatically and semantically correct form of the future perfect. This fact alone disproves your contention that no native English speaker would use such a sentence. The truth of the matter is that some educated English speakers—whether native or nonnative users of the language—who happen not to be conversant with such determining adverbs of time as “long” and “just,” indeed use “had” as their grammatical and semantic equivalents in forming the future perfect. So really now, by what authority can you say that “it is an undeniable fact” that no native English speaker would use that particular form for the future perfect? Are you so well-traveled a linguist or at least such a discerning observer that you have actually listened to all of the native English speakers in all of the world’s English-speaking countries in the act of not using the sentence in question here? I venture to say that unless you properly qualify yourself in this regard, you really don’t have the authority to make such a sweeping declaration.
I think some measure of humility would make you a more credible commentator about English, regardless of whether you are a native or nonnative speaker of the language. Indeed, just to bring this discussion to a peaceable close, I would suggest that you reword your statement perhaps this way: “I
have never heard any native English speaker use the future perfect that way.” As proof, you might add that for many years now, you have traveled extensively at least all over North America, the United Kingdom, and the British Commonwealth observing the future-perfect usage of practically all of their native English speakers. That, to my mind, is a precise, factual, and totally unassailable assertion that will not bring to question your intellectual honesty and the quality of your judgment as a language critic.