Brad,

Strangely, that is not the meaning I take from this configuration. It seems that English uses its limited palate of verb forms to accomplish a variety of tasks. In this instance, the fact that the cause of death was heart failure is in the foreground. "That he had had cancer" tells us it was not the cause of death. I imagine that had he died of some other cause not mentioned or alluded to and we had been told "that he had cancer," we should conclude that he had passed with that being the primary cause of this death.

The mind fills the spaces between the words with meaning. The words merely prompt us, and the mystery you present to us--why should both "had" and "had" be brought together within that context?--is resolved by us, not the text. The proper use of words is always optional. Ambiguity invites our participation. That is what communication is all about. It makes us glad to be alive.

Enjoy,

Gregg

~~~~~~~~~~~

On Jun 15, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:

New York Times archives. Published: August 18, 1993

Frank R. Barnett, founder and president of the National Strategy Information Center of Washington and New York, died on Sunday at a Manhattan nursing home. He was 72 and lived in Manhattan.

The cause was heart failure, the center said, adding that he had had cancer.

. . . . . . . .

If he "had" cancer, he had cancer at the time of his death.

If he "had had" cancer, he did not have cancer at the time of his death.

The past perfect is a device that changes meaning. Its proper use is never optional.

The example makes clear why the past tense is always the default.