Jose Carillo's English Forum
The Latest Buzz! => Site Announcements => Topic started by: Joe Carillo on July 29, 2009, 11:30:02 AM
-
John Nery, senior editor and columnist of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, wrote a laudatory piece in his column “Newsstand” yesterday, July 28, about Give Your English the Winning Edge and its formal book launching last July 20.
Read John Nery’s “Presidential English and other forms of flattery” now! (http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090728-217538/Presidential-English-and-other-forms-of-flattery)
-
...Suffice it to say—another cliché—that my fellow writers and myself—who were invited to write blurbs for Joe Carillo’s three books—...
Joe,
Surely he meant to say "my fellow writers and I"......?
-
...Suffice it to say—another cliché—that my fellow writers and myself—who were invited to write blurbs for Joe Carillo’s three books—...
Joe,
Surely he meant to say "my fellow writers and I"......?
Although certain usages of “myself” continue to be disputed by the prescriptivists and descriptivists, I think John Nery’s usage of “myself” in his sentence is grammatically airtight. Here’s what my digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary has to say about the word and its usage:
Main Entry: myself
Function: pronoun
Date: before 12th century
1 : that identical one that is I — used reflexively <I'm going to get myself a new suit>, for emphasis <I myself will go>, or in absolute constructions <myself a tourist, I nevertheless avoided other tourists>
2 : my normal, healthy, or sane condition <didn't feel myself yesterday>
usage Myself is often used where I or me might be expected: as subject <to wonder what myself will say — Emily Dickinson> <others and myself continued to press for the legislation>, after as, than, or like <an aversion to paying such people as myself to tutor> <was enough to make a better man than myself quail> <old-timers like myself>, and as object <now here you see myself with the diver> <for my wife and myself it was a happy time.>. Such uses almost always occur when the speaker or writer is referring to himself or herself as an object of discourse rather than as a participant in discourse. The other reflexive personal pronouns are similarly but less frequently used in the same circumstances. Critics have frowned on these uses since about the turn of the century, probably unaware that they serve a definite purpose. Users themselves are as unaware as the critics—they simply follow their instincts. These uses are standard. [Boldfacing mine]
The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, which bills itself as the complete guide to problems of confused or disputed usage, cites several other usages of “myself” like John Nery’s by leading authors over the centuries, among them Samuel Johnson, Charles Lamb, Samuel Butler, Robert Frost, Kingsley Amis, and Henry James. You can check out these citations by clicking this link to Google Books. (http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA649&lpg=PA649&dq=myself,+American+Heritage+Dictionary&source=bl&ots=nYtXpku-X5&sig=rPeu_h5qveD1c8UdE3Cc2E_V0xM&hl=en&ei=XD9wSsrlEpWGkQWh6MnHBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10)
Of course, the position of Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary and that of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage are what we might consider as the descriptivist position about the usage of “myself” and the other reflexive pronouns. The prescriptivist position, on the other hand, is taken by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which makes the following usage note about “myself”:
USAGE NOTE The –self pronouns, such as myself, yourselves, and herself, are sometimes used as emphatic substitutes for personal pronouns, as in Like yourself, I have no apologies to make. The practice is particularly common in compound phrases: Ms. Evans or yourself will have to pick them up at the airport. Although these usages have been common in the writing of reputable authors for several centuries, they may sound overwrought. [Boldfacing mine] A large majority of the Usage Panel disapproves of the use of –self pronouns when they do not refer to the subject of the sentence. Seventy-three percent reject the sentence He was an enthusiastic fisherman like myself. Sixty-seven percent object to The letters were written entirely by myself. The Panel is even less tolerant of compound usages. Eighty-eight percent find this sentence unacceptable: The boss asked John and myself to give a brief presentation.
The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar takes a position about the usage of “myself” similar to that of The American Heritage Dictionary. It says:
myself
“1. (n. & adj.) (A pronoun) that refers back to the subject of the same clause.
”The reflexive pronouns end in -self or -selves (e.g. myself, themselves).
”A reflexive pronoun is not usually considered acceptable as a subject in standard English (e.g.*James and myself intend to help ) but can be used as emphatic reinforcement (e.g. I myself believe that he's telling the truth , despite what the others say ).”
The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style by Bryan A. Garner also takes the same prescriptivist position, which you can read by clicking this link to Google Books (http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=z_VmtjAU01YC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=myself,+Oxford+Dictionary&source=bl&ots=6FdQci6SE_&sig=2AXRlu2jju-6qEqRXGUxcKVKeqk&hl=en&ei=VztwSpG_FMuIkQXm_czABQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6).
--------
So here we are, still faced by the long-running dispute between the English-language descriptivists and prescriptivists. On the whole, though, I would suggest that we should not allow ourselves to suffer paralysis by analysis and should just trust our own instincts when using “myself.” And in this particular instance, all things considered, I must say that I trust John Nery’s, totally and unconditionally.
-
So, if John alone had been invited, he would have said, instinctively:
"Suffice to say - another cliche - that myself - who was invited to write blurbs for Joe Carillo's three books - "
I don't think so.
-
So, if John alone had been invited, he would have said, instinctively:
"Suffice to say - another cliche - that myself - who was invited to write blurbs for Joe Carillo's three books - "
I don't think so.
That particular usage, Max, would indeed be a grammatical abomination, but not John Nery's, which uses "myself" as part of an object of the relative pronoun "that"--"that my fellow writers and myself." It's perfectly acceptable. In fact, according to the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, "only the use of 'myself' as sole subject of a sentence seems to be restricted..."
Take a look at these prose examples from three famous writers over the past century where "myself" is used as part of a compound object of the preposition:
Emily Dickinson (the poet), letter of April 1873: "...it will require the continued efforts of Maggie, Providence, and myself."
T.S. Eliot (the poet), May 7, 1957: "Indeed I hope that you will have time, amongst your numerous engagements, to have a meal with my wife and myself."
Alexander Woollcott (the writer), in a November 11, 1940 letter: "...with Dorothy Thompson and myself among the speakers."
There are many more examples in the book that you may want to look over; just click this link (http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA649&lpg=PA649&dq=myself,+American+Heritage+Dictionary&source=bl&ots=nYtXpku-X5&sig=rPeu_h5qveD1c8UdE3Cc2E_V0xM&hl=en&ei=XD9wSsrlEpWGkQWh6MnHBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10).
As I have already pointed out, even the prescriptivist American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language concedes: "The practice [of using 'myself'] is particularly common in compound phrases: Ms. Evans or yourself will have to pick them up at the airport. Although these usages have been common in the writing of reputable authors for several centuries, they may sound overwrought."
The usage of "myself" in such situations may indeed be overwrought to prescriptivists' ears, but I do think that we must grant the writer the liberty to make his writing sound according to his or her best lights.
-
I should like to hear John's answer to my nit-picking!
For my own part, I shall stick with the Oxford (the English, after all did invent the language!).
The fact that several celebrated writers got it wrong (in my view) in no way justifies a contrary opinion. I dare say I could find dozens of examples of equally celebrated writers getting it right.
A celebrated Romantic poet (I regret to say that the name escapes me) once ended a verse with "There let him lay". Does that make this use of "lay" correct?
-
...That particular usage, Max, would indeed be a grammatical abomination, but not John Nery's, which uses "myself" as part of an object of the relative pronoun "that"-....
Hmmm..I always thought that a reflextive pronoun was an object of either a verb or a preposition.
-
...That particular usage, Max, would indeed be a grammatical abomination, but not John Nery's, which uses "myself" as part of an object of the relative pronoun "that"-....
Hmmm..I always thought that a reflextive pronoun was an object of either a verb or a preposition.
That’s right, Max—a reflexive pronoun can be the object of either a verb or a preposition. For instance, “myself” is an object of the verb in the sentence “I found myself all alone in the island.” On the other hand, “herself” is the object of the preposition to in the sentence “She said to herself, ‘Not ever again!’”
By definition, of course, a grammatical object is “a noun or noun equivalent (as a pronoun, gerund, or clause) denoting the goal or result of the action of a verb,” or “a noun or noun equivalent in a prepositional phrase.” (Definitions by Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary)
Now, take the following sentence as an example: “We asked that Gina and myself be excused for a while. Here, the noun “Gina” and the reflexive pronoun “myself” are both objects of the relative pronoun “that.” They are objects in such constructions in the sense that they indirectly receive the action transmitted by the operative verb “asked” through the relative pronoun “that.” The mechanism for transmission of the action of the verb in such “that”-constructions is similar to that of the preposition “to” in the second example above, which acts as a “conduit” for the action of the operative verb “said” that’s indirectly transmitted to the noun “herself.”
We will recall, of course, that this is precisely the mechanism that makes it possible for intransitive verbs like “said” and “asked” (at least in their particular usage in this case) to transmit their action in the absence of a direct object, of which there will be none when the operative verb is intransitive. Whatever indirectly receives that action can then be considered as an object of that action.
(We must keep in mind, of course, that reflexives like "myself" and "herself" are meant precisely to make it grammatically possible for the doer of the action of an intransitive verb to receive the action himself or herself as a direct object in the absence of a separate direct object to receive that action.)
-
...Now, take the following sentence as an example: “We asked that Gina and myself be excused for a while. Here, the noun “Gina” and the reflexive pronoun “myself” are both objects of the relative pronoun “that.” They are objects in such constructions in the sense that they indirectly receive the action transmitted by the operative verb “asked” through the relative pronoun “that.” .
Joe, I have looked at the above from every which way, and I cannot see where "Gina and myself" are objects, indirect or otherwise, of the verb "asked". To my mind, the only possible object of that verb is the unstated person to whom the request was directed.
Further (and i don't care what Merriam-Webster says) if, as you state, that "myself" is an object of "that", then surely "myself'" is serving an objective function and therefore should be "I"...?
But back to the original sentence of contention:
..Suffice it to say—another cliché—that my fellow writers and myself—who were invited to write blurbs for Joe Carillo’s three books—
You state, via your authorities, that the sentence is grammatically OK, but to write
Suffice it to say-another cliche-that myself - who was invited to write...etc" is not.
Grammatically and logically ludicrous!
-
...(We must keep in mind, of course, that reflexives like "myself" and "herself" are meant precisely to make it grammatically possible for the doer of the action of an intransitive verb to receive the action himself or herself as a direct object in the absence of a separate direct object to receive that action.)...
I would have thought that, by definition, an intransitive verb cannot have a direct object.
-
To better see what I mean when I say that something can be an object of "that," imagine yourself having just heard the following question somewhat fuzzily and you wanted the speaker to clarify it: "We asked that Gina be excused for a while." You'd likely ask the following question:
"You asked whom?" The answer: "Gina." Gina is in the objective case in this sentence, but as you know, in English, nouns have the same form in both the objective and subjective case; it inflects or changes only in the possessive case ("Gina's," in this particular example). At any rate, Gina indirectly receives the action of the operative verb "asked" through the relative pronoun "that." It's therefore an object in the roughly the same sense that "Mary" is an object of the preposition "to" in the following sentence: "The money was given to Mary."
On the matter of the usage of "myself," Max, since we are invoking different language authorities with diametrically opposed positions, let's just agree to disagree on the usage.
-
...To better see what I mean when I say that something can be an object of "that," imagine yourself having just heard the following question somewhat fuzzily and you wanted the speaker to clarify it: "We asked that Gina be excused for a while." You'd likely ask the following question:
"You asked whom?" The answer: "Gina." ...
Absolutely no way known! We asked whoever could excuse Gina.
-
...To better see what I mean when I say that something can be an object of "that," imagine yourself having just heard the following question somewhat fuzzily and you wanted the speaker to clarify it: "We asked that Gina be excused for a while." You'd likely ask the following question:
"You asked whom?" The answer: "Gina." ...
Absolutely no way known! We asked whoever could excuse Gina.
You’re right, Max. I got distracted when I was typing my answer to your post on the fly, picked a wrong sentence as my example, and proceeded to do a wrongheaded grammar analysis.
I would like to offer a better example of a sentence to show what I mean when I say that something can indeed be an object of the relative pronoun “that”--the original sentence itself that has been in contention here, but shorn of its two parentheticals to simplify the analysis:
“Suffice it to say that my fellow writers and myself unreservedly, enthusiastically, and even desperately recommend them to Filipinos from all walks of life.”
Now, imagine yourself having just heard the statement above somewhat fuzzily and you wanted the speaker to clarify who you were referring to. Your question will then likely take the following form: “Suffice it to say that who?” And the speaker will probably answer in this wise: “My fellow writers and myself, that’s what* I’m referring to.” The compound noun phrase “my fellow writers and myself” will then be an object of the relative pronoun “that,” in the sense that that noun phrase indirectly receives the action of the operative verb “say” as transmitted through the relative pronoun “that.” This is what I meant when I said that the noun phrase “my fellow writers and myself” is an object of “that” in roughly the same sense that "Mary" is an object of the preposition “to” (and as such indirectly receives the action of the verb “was given”) in the following sentence: “The money was given to Mary.”
This analysis, of course, takes care only of the noun phrase “my fellow writers and myself” in relation to the relative pronoun “that.” But no matter how we may differ in the way we look at the grammar situation here, we must not lose sight of the fact that in that sentence, the whole relative phrase “that my fellow writers and myself unreservedly, enthusiastically, and even desperately recommend them to Filipinos from all walks of life” is actually the direct object of the verb “say”—with “that” as the trigger for that grammatical relationship. This is the best I can do to explain the point I made at the outset.
Before I close, in response to your earlier suggestion that John Nery answer for this particular questionable usage in his newspaper column, I just would like to clarify rather belatedly that the quoted statement in question is actually not John’s. On much closer reading after this grammar hullabaloo, I found that it’s actually part of the speech of Mr. Ed Maranan formally introducing me during the launching of my book, Give Your English the Winning Edge.
Would you like to take Mr. Maranan to task for it, or shall we let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak?
---
*I know that some people will fiercely insist on using “whom” here, but I’m comfortable using “what” in the sense that it’s much more natural to say, “What I’m referring to is my fellow writers and myself” rather than “Whom I’m referring to are my fellow writers and myself.” (I hope you won't take issue with me on this choice of usage :D.)
-
...Would you like to take Mr. Maranan to task for it, or shall we let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak?...
Mr. Maranan is probably too busy taking you to task for implying that he is a sleeping dog! :D
-
Sir Joe, can you enlighten me on the use of what and whom? I am confused with your sentence “What I’m referring to is my fellow writers and myself.” Why not use whom instead of what?
Thanks.
-
Sir Joe, can you enlighten me on the use of what and whom? I am confused with your sentence “What I’m referring to is my fellow writers and myself.”Why not use whom instead of what?
Thanks.
In informal conversations, someone still unsure of something he or she is seeing in perhaps a poorly lighted street may make such a general remark as this: “There seems to be something coming our way.” The speaker still doesn’t know whether that something is a human being, an animal, a vehicle, maybe even a ghost—whatever. And on hearing such a statement, the listener will probably ask for clarification by asking this question: “What are you referring to?” Assuming that by this time, it has already become clear to the first speaker that what’s coming are actually two people that both of them know, the first speaker will likely give this answer: “Oh, what I was referring to is actually George and Tina. I can see them clearly now under the lamppost.”
In such situations, the listener at first still doesn’t know the nature of the thing that’s coming, so he or she normally would use the generic “what” as the default relative pronoun. The listener could use “who” or “whom” only if he or she is sure that what the first speaker is referring to is human, so the question that the listener would normally ask takes the generic “what”: “What are you referring to?” To ask “Who are you referring to?” or “Whom are you referring to?” would be very unnatural and unlikely and unidiomatic basides.
Now, to answer your second question: Why shouldn’t the first speaker use “whom” instead of “what” in this remark: “Oh, what I was referring to is actually George and Tina. I can see them clearly now under the lamppost.” Specifically, why not say: “Oh, whom I was referring to is actually George and Tina. I can see them clearly now under the lamppost”?
Again, the use of “whom” here is very unlikely because it’s a very unnatural change in grammatical case that’s not really worth a bother in such spur-of-the-moment situations, and it’s also not idiomatic—meaning that it’s not the natural way people say things. In fact, although “whom”-constructions in such situations are doubtless a mark of educated English, the problem is that the usage sounds too stiff and formal, and they perform even more badly when spoken. We thus can say that in such situations, the shift from “what” to “who” to “whom” is a most undesirable jump from the semantic frying pan to the fire, so to speak.
Finally, why use the singular “is” instead of the plural “are” in the remark “Oh, what I was referring to is actually George and Tina”? This requires a very long and extensive grammatical explanation that I won’t be able to give here; in the meantime, you may just take my word for it that the use of “is” is justified in such constructions.
(For a fuller understanding of the admittedly bewildering usage of “that,” “what,” “who,” and “whom,” my new book Give Your English the Winning Edge extensively discusses them in Chapters 105-108.)
-
Just a very brief comment re The writers and myself...
Translated into Spanish, it would be: "Los escritores y yo..."
There's no other pronoun for it but "yo" or "I".