Question!

[Taka]

Originally Posted by tdol

They took a lot of drugs in the sixties. I must confess, the meaning escapes me. ;-)

OK, how about this one?

I saw myself the complexities and fragility of the peace-building process.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_r...ech_01_192.htm

Doesn't look like this person was intoxicated during the speech.^_^

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

As soon as one comes to "myself" after "saw" one expects the sentence to be about an image of the speaker.

Yes, I know that is the usual interpretation you would make, and that's why I said "it's a bit confusing". But as you can see in the other examples I've given, don't you think it's possible to use "oneself" after "see" as an emphasis of the subject, although it's unusual?

[Tdol]

That works much better. I think it could be because the thing he saw isn't physical. But, then again, I think it might also be a rhetorical flourish. I have to mull this over, but I still dislike 'myself the accident'.

[Taka]

Originally Posted by tdol

That works much better. I think it could be because the thing he saw isn't physical. But, then again, I think it might also be a rhetorical flourish. I have to mull this over, but I still dislike 'myself the accident'.;-)

OK. I understand.

The reason I've had you compare the sentences is that a friend of mine has had a hard time understanding this sentence:

I found myself a perfectly smooth rock.

http://www.chickensoup.com/books/soup_5_sample_01.html

He says the "myself" above is an indirect object as "him" in, say, "I gave him some money". But I think it is used as an emphasis of the subject as we've seen here in the "see"-case.

Which interpretation do you think is correct?

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by Taka

OK, how about this one?

I saw myself the complexities and fragility of the peace-building process.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_r...ech_01_192.htm

Doesn't look like this person was intoxicated during the speech.^_^

Yes, I know that is the usual interpretation you make, and that's why I said "it's a bit confusing". But as you can see in the other examples I've given, don't you think it's possible to use "oneself" after "see" as an emphasis of the subject, although it's unusual?

It could be done, but "myself" would have to be set off by commas. In your example, "for myself" would be far more common. :wink:

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Taka

OK. I understand.

The reason I've had you compare the sentences is that a friend of mine has had a hard time understanding this sentence:

I found myself a perfectly smooth rock.

http://www.chickensoup.com/books/soup_5_sample_01.html

He says the "myself" above is an indirect object as "him" in, say, "I gave him some money". But I think it is used as an emphasis of the subject as we've seen here in the "see"-case.

Which interpretation do you think is correct?

1. I found myself a perfectly smooth rock.
=>'myself' is the indirect object (i.e. I found a perfectly smooth rock for myself)

2. I found, myself, a perfectly smooth rock. ('myself' is added information, and hence the commas. It means, by myself (i.e. I found it by myself).

(a) I myself saw the accident.
(b) I saw the accident myself.

I think (a) and (b) are semantically the same. Then, is it possibe to say for the same meaning "(c) I saw myself the accident."? (c) is a bit confusing, but, in my opinion, it's possible.

(a) and (b) both mean, I saw the accident with my own eyes. 'myself' is added information and functions as the instrument; It seems redundant in that the verb 'saw' already expresses that instrument (i.e. we see with our eyes), but it's not. Adding 'myself' serves to emphasize "I".

(a) I, with my own eyes, saw the accident.
(b) I saw the accident with my own eyes.

With regards to (c),

(c) I saw myself the accident

it's ungrammatical. Both 'myself' and 'the accident' function as the object of the verb 'saw', which is transitive. That is, it can only take one object, not two. It's either "I saw myself" or "I saw the accident". If you want to add in 'myself', place it either before or after the verb-object unit (saw the accident). When you place it inside the unit, you break up the unit's structural integrity, its flow of meaning, its structural relationship. That's why (c) is seems a bit confusing to you. I can see how one might see it as meaningful, but that'd be a case using commas or dashes, like this,

I saw--myself--the accident.
I saw, myself, the accident.

By using dashes or commas, we set 'myself' off from the unit. Linearly, it looks like 'myself' is inside the 'saw the accident' unit, but non-linearly, which is how the brain processes language, 'myself' is above or outside of the unit. The dashes and commas serve as a mental or cognitive pause and function something like this, "Stop, consider this word, this phrase, now go back to what you were reading or listening to."

Hope that helps.

All the best,

[blacknomi]

<clapping really loud here>


sabrina

[Taka]

Thanks for your devoted explanation, Casiopea.

But then, how do you analyze a simple sentence like:

I am going to have myself some fun.

with your theory?

You wouldn't say that this case is exceptional and "myself" there is an emphasis of the subject. I don't mean to insult you at all, but if you would, to be honest, I'd say your theory is a bit inconsistent...

[blacknomi]

Originally Posted by Taka

Thanks for your devoted explanation, Casiopea.

But then, how do you analyze a simple sentence like:

I am going to have myself some fun.

with your theory?

You wouldn't say that this case is exceptional and "myself" there is an emphasis of the subject. I don't mean to insult you at all, but if you would, to be honest, I'd say your theory is a bit inconsistent...

In your previous examples, Cas' idea is that,
(a) I myself saw the accident.
Here the reflexive "myself" emphasized the subject "I" because "I myself" functions as the main "Noun Phrase" in this sentence, which means the relationship between "I" and "myself" are close to each other.
The phrase structure rules are like this,
S--> NP VP
NP-->Noun(I) Reflexive Pronoun(myself)
VP--> V(saw) NP(the accident)

(b) I saw the accident myself.
Here, the reflexive "myself" is farther away from the subject "I", which emphasize less than (a).
The phrase structure rules are structured like the following,
S--> NP VP NP
NP-->N (I)
VP --> V(saw) NP(the accident)
NP --> Reflexive Pronoun(myself) this NP underwent the rule of inversion, mitigate tight relationship between "I" and "myself".


It's better to use "I am going to have fun."
Just like Cas said, "have" is a vt. which needs to be preceded by an object. Therefore, you can say "have fun" or "have great fun".
Rules: have + (adjective) + fun.
In this case, "myself" is a pronoun that can't modify a noun.


Second, "I am going to have myself fun." If you apply Cas' , you break up the structual integrity if you place "myself" inside the VP unit(have fun). Therefore, if you'd like to express an idea that someone is going to a party alone, try this one, "I am going to have fun myself." It makes more sense than yours.


I don't see anything wrong with Cas' theory. hehe.
wow we have someone's theory.


sabrina

[Taka]

I know what you mean theoretically, blacknomi. But do you really think that "have myself a good time" is all that ungrammatical? Haven't you heard such phrases in daily conversations? (What is your first language?). As far as I'm concerned, I've heard them a lot. Too many to call such expressions "wrong".

Try Google search for "have myself".

You would be amazed by a number of examples you've got.

p.s: I've found interesting examples, blacknomi.

I have myself had such dreams.
I have myself had the opportunity to visit the Sherborne House.

The "have"s above are clearly not transitive verbs.

How do you explain those "myself"s with your "vt-theory"?

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Taka

Thanks for your devoted explanation, Casiopea.

But then, how do you analyze a simple sentence like:

I am going to have myself some fun.

with your theory?

You wouldn't say that this case is exceptional and "myself" there is an emphasis of the subject. I don't mean to insult you at all, but if you would, to be honest, I'd say your theory is a bit inconsistent...

No insult taken. :D Asking questions is the first step in learning. 8)

Let's take a look at the sentence in question.

EX: I am going to have myself some fun.

Within the sentence, 'myself' functions as the indirect object of 'to have', like this,

EX: I am going to have some fun by/for myself. (V+DO+IO)
EX: I am going to have myself some fun. (V+IO+DO)

Grammatically, in terms of structure that is, it's fine. In terms of semantics, however, it's ambiguous. As an indirect object, 'myself' can be structurally realized as 'for' or 'by' or even 'with', like this,

I am going to have some fun by myself.
I am going to have some fun for myself.
I am going to have some fun with myself.

According to human nature, there is apparently a great deal of consistency in having fun with oneself.