Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62

Thread: Question!

  1. #21
    Taka is offline Senior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • Japanese
      • Home Country:
      • Japan
      • Current Location:
      • Japan
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,074
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Casiopea
    No insult taken. :D Asking questions is the first step in learning.
    I'm glad to hear that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casiopea
    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)
    I've checked all of the dictionaries at hand (Collins Cobuild, Oxford Advanced Learners, etc), but I haven't been able to find any dictionary so far which clearly states that there is a "V+IO+DO" construction for the verb "have".

    Plus, how do you analyze with your theory the sentences that I've given to blacknomi:

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

    As I told blacknomi, the "have"s above are clearly not transitive verbs.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,814
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 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"?
    Hi, Taka,
    To answer your first question, English is my second language, and I know there is still room to improve. Honestly, IMO, the sentence you mentioned was semantically strange for me. And you are right, I learned something today. Thank you very much, and reading your question is interesting and it also helps me clear some doubts.

    The other two examples you attached, would "have" be a "causative verb"?

    I am looking forward to hearing from you.


    sabrina

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,970
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Taka

    Quote Originally Posted by Casiopea
    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)
    I've checked all of the dictionaries at hand (Collins Cobuild, Oxford Advanced Learners, etc), but I haven't been able to find any dictionary so far which clearly states that there is a "V+IO+DO" construction for the verb "have".
    You're right. 'have' is not ditransitive. Moreover, since 'myself' can be moved around the sentence, it couldn't be an object:

    I, myself, am going to have some fun.
    I am, myself, going to have some fun.
    I am going to have, myself, some fun.
    I am going, myself, to have some fun.
    I am going to have some fun, myself.

    Thank you for questioning. Keep it up. :D

    Q: How/why are you going to have some fun?
    A: By myself, for myself, with myself.

    Seems to me that 'myself', a nominal, is functioning as part of an adverb phrase, headed by a non-overt preposition (by, for, with).

    Quote Originally Posted by Taka
    Plus, how do you analyze with your theory the sentences that I've given to blacknomi:

    I have myself had such dreams.
    I have myself had the opportunity to visit the Sherborne House.
    As I told blacknomi, the "have"s above are clearly not transitive verbs.[/quote]

    'have had' is a set unit, and you're right in saying 'have' is not transitive (i.e. takes a nominal object). With regards to what function 'myself' plays, well, let's look at its distribution once again:

    1. I, myself, have had such dreams.
    2. I have, myself, had such dreams.
    3. I have had, myself, such dreams.
    4. I have had such dreams, myself.

    Based solely on the distribution of 'myself' in example 2., I'd argue that 'myself' functions as part of an adverb phrase, the head of which is covert (i.e. by myself). The evidence: only adverbs can break up the integrity of a verb phrase and produce a grammatical result.

    All the best,

  4. #24
    Taroimo Guest
    Hi,

    Let me jump in, if I may. (Well, I already did, whether I'm allowed or not :D) I'm the friend of Taka's who has trouble with what you've been discussing under this thread.

    To get the overall picture, I would like you to compare the following sentences that have come up in your discussion:

    (1) I found myself a perfectly smooth stone.
    (2) I am going to have myself some fun.
    (3) I saw myself the accident.
    (4) I saw myself the complexities and fragility of the peace-building process.
    (5) I have had myself such dreams.

    Do you feel the status of "myself" in these examples to be the same? Casiopea (and I guess the others as well) would need to set "myself" off by commas or dashes in order to accept (3), (4) and (5), which I take to mean that some kind of intonation break is necessary before and (more importantly) after "myself" in spoken English.

    Is the same kind of special intonation necessary to accept (1) and (2)? I would imagine, from the discussion so far, that the same kind of intonation is possible and that it gives an emphatic meaning to the subject "I", but I'm interested in whether it is necessary. If (1) and (2) are acceptable without the special intonation, do they give rise to the same meaning as their counterparts with the special intonation? (Incidentally, (1) and (2) could behave differently.)

    Thank you in advance.

    Taroimo

  5. #25
    Taka is offline Senior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • Japanese
      • Home Country:
      • Japan
      • Current Location:
      • Japan
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,074
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by blacknomi
    Thank you very much, and reading your question is interesting and it also helps me clear some doubts.
    Thank you, blacknomi. We are both students of English, so exchanging our ideas is very important. I'm glad you've joined the discussion here and had your say.

    Quote Originally Posted by blacknomi
    The other two examples you attached, would "have" be a "causative verb"?
    The "have"s there are auxiliary verbs. They are simply the "have"s of present perfect.


    Taroimo...you are finally here.

    I don't know what the teachers are going to say, but let me say something.

    I think Casiopea's final argument has at last led to the conclusion: such reflexive pronouns are all used to emphasize the subject. They are not the indirect objects. And the reason is quite simple as Casiopea has pointed out: only adverbs can break up the integrity of a verb phrase and produce a grammatical result. You cannot see the same things happening with indirect objects.

    As for the "found myself a perfectly smooth stone" case, let us use Casiopea's smart analysis: 'myself', a nominal, is functioning as part of an adverb phrase, headed by a non-overt preposition (by, for, with). In other words, it is almost the same as "found for myself a perfectly smooth stone". In fact, you can apply Casiopea's analysis as well to the other examples you've listed up; simplicity and universality is the key element of logic. Don't you think so?

    I think the reason why teachers prefer commas before such reflexives is that they want to avoid confusion; unlike the case of, say, non-restrictive vs. restrictive use of relative pronoun, for which whether or not you use commas before the pronoun is crucial, the use of commas before such reflexives is a matter of preference; they just make the sentences much clearer. If the commas should have the same significance as the ones for relative pronouns, then you wouldn't see so much "without-commas" usage for such reflexives in reality (Try the Google search, your favorite).

    Anyway, I don't think that such reflexives are indirect objects of the preceding verbs (In another forum, you said they are, right, Taroimo?).

    That's my idea.

    OK, let's wait and see what the teachers here are going to say.

  6. #26
    Taroimo Guest
    Just a quick reply, Taka.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taka
    As for the "found myself a perfectly smooth stone" case, let us use Casiopea's smart analysis: 'myself', a nominal, is functioning as part of an adverb phrase, headed by a non-overt preposition (by, for, with). In other words, it is almost the same as "found for myself a perfectly smooth stone". In fact, you can apply Casiopea's analysis as well to the other examples you've listed up; simplicity and universality is the key element of logic. Don't you think so?
    I'm after the possibility of structural ambiguity. I.e., I'm trying to see if there are two subcases of "V oneself OBJECT": one with an emphatic "oneself" and the other with an indirect object "oneself". Being equivalent in meaning to "I found for myself a perfectly smooth stone" doesn't preclude the possibility of "myself" being the indirect object, right?

    In cases like "I bought myself a birthday present", you don't say "myself" is an emphatic "myself", although it is almost the same as "I bought for myself a birthday present", do you? Or do you say "myself" in cases like this is also emphatic "myself"?

    Taroimo

  7. #27
    Taka is offline Senior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • Japanese
      • Home Country:
      • Japan
      • Current Location:
      • Japan
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,074
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Taroimo
    I'm after the possibility of structural ambiguity.
    Ambiguous, it may be; I should say it is "confusing". Anyway, you didn't use the word "ambiguous" in another forum, but said, seemingly with confidence, "it is an indirect object", didn't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taroimo
    Being equivalent in meaning to "I found for myself a perfectly smooth stone" doesn't preclude the possibility of "myself" being the indirect object, right?
    That's right, if we just consider that case. However, as we've seen in other cases where reflexives are used for the verbs that cannot be followed by indirect objects, I'd say your "indirect-object" theory is ad hoc; it might work only for the verb "find" and other transitive verbs that have the "V+IO+DO" construction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taroimo
    In cases like "I bought myself a birthday present", you don't say "myself" is an emphatic "myself"
    It could be, and why couldn't it be? In fact, I would rather say it emphasizes the subject.

    You wouldn't say like this is a case of a reflexive noun used as an indirect object just because your English-Japanese dictionary says so, would you? If you would, I have to warn you that some English-Japanese dictionaries contain weird sentences in English as examples.

    As for "buy oneself something", I've found only one English-Japanese dictionary that has "buy oneself something" as an example of the "V+IO+DO" construction of "buy". Other than that dictionary, however, there isn't any at my hand. And taking "universality" and "simplicity" of logic into consideration, I'd say it's safe to see the "myself" of "buy myself" as one of those emphatic reflexives.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,970
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Taroimo

    (1) I found myself a perfectly smooth stone.
    (2) I am going to have myself some fun.
    (3) I saw myself the accident.
    (4) I saw myself the complexities and fragility of the peace-building process.
    (5) I have had myself such dreams.

    ...I'm interested in whether it is necessary. If (1) and (2) are acceptable without the special intonation, do they give rise to the same meaning as their counterparts with the special intonation? (Incidentally, (1) and (2) could behave differently.)
    Omoshiroii desu ne? Let's look at the sentences together.

    (1a) I found myself a perfectly smooth rock. :D
    (1b) I found, myself, a perfectly smooth rock. :D

    Verb Structure ("find", ditransitive)
    find someone something (IO+DO)
    find something for someone (DO+IO)

    To my knowledge, the verb "find" is a type of ditransitive verb that incorporates its indirect object within the semantic structure of the verb, which means, speakers need not state the IO because its already expressed within the verb, but if they wish to emphasis the IO, they do so by unfolding from the verb and realizing it within a prepositional phrase, like this,

    DO+(IO): I found a rock (for myself). :D
    DO+IO: I found a rock for myself. :D
    IO+DO: I found myself a rock. :D

    We could also add to that structure a means,

    IO+DO: I found myself a rock by myself. :D
    DO+IO: I found a rock for myself by myself. :D

    The 'by myself' phrase functions as an adverb. We can move it around, like this,

    I, myself, found myself a rock. :D
    I, myself, found a rock for myself. :D

    Miscommunication results when the speaker's intention is to express 'myself' as an adverb, yet forgets that in order to do that s/he has to signal to the reader/listener that even though 'myself' looks like a nominal and is sitting in a position reserved for objects, it is not the verb's object, nor is it functioning as a nominal. The speaker can alleviate such a miscommunication quite easily by adding commas or a pause/change of intonantion in speech, like this,

    1. I found, myself, a rock. :D
    ==> Meaning: I found (by myself) a rock. (i.e. I am the person who found the rock)

    2. I found myself a rock. :D
    ==> Meaning: I found (for myself) a rock. (i.e. I am the person who benefits from having found the rock.)

    There is no ambiguity in 2. Sentence 2. does not carry the same meaning as sentence 1. because a) 'found' takes two objects, b) 'myself' is a nominal, and c) 'myself' is within close proximity of the verb, making it part of the verb unit. If we added commas or paused or changed the intonantion around 'myself', then 'myself' would not longer be within close proximity of the verb, thereby making it an adverb:

    1. I found, myself, a rock. :D (I did it by myself) MEANS
    2. I found myself a rock. :D (I did it for myself) BENEFACTOR

    Sentence 1. and 2. are different, all due, in this particular structure, to the commas. Sentence 1 could not be read as sentence 2., and sentence 2. could not be read as sentence 1. However, speakers not knowing how to use commas or pauses or intonantion tend to express what they don't mean to express (i.e. some speakers may think that "I found myself a rock" means, I did it by myself).

    So, in short, there is no ambiguity. However, ambiguity does in fact result, especially when we place 'myself' after a transitive verb,

    I saw myself the accident. :(

    Meaning is coded in the form of structural relationships. Placing 'myself', a nominal, directly after the verb makes it the verb's object. If 'myself' functions as an adverb, then we'd have to differentiate it from its nominal counterpart by adding an adverbial element, thereby disguising its form, like this,

    I saw, for myself, the accident.

    As is, though, 'myself' automatically functions as the verb's object because it's nominal in form. That is, speaker intuition is that nominals functions as objects, whereas adverbs do not. That's why speakers find "I saw myself the accident" somewhat confusing. There are two objects, two nominals, 'myself' and 'accident', sitting in a position reserved for one nominals only.

    In short, "I found myself a rock" is ditransitive because 'found' takes two objects. Adding commas, like this, serves to separate the adverb from the verb+object unit: "I found, myself, a rock". In other words, speakers read the sentence, come across what appears to be a nominal element housed within commas, and know automatically that that word is not to be taken for the verb's object. The commas (in writing) or a pause or change of intonantion (in speaking) signal to the reader/listener that the element housed within is outside of/not part of the verb+object unit.

    In sum, given the sentences below, (1) is grammatical and (3) is ungrammatical. (4) is also ungrammatical. It shares the same structure as (3). Changing the verb's object is of no concern. The problem has to do with the fact that there are simply too many objects for a transitive verb to realize its meaning onto. Transitive verbs can handle one object only, never two.

    (1) I found myself a perfectly smooth stone. :D
    (2) I am going to have myself some fun.
    (3) I saw myself the accident. :(
    (4) I saw myself the complexities... :(
    (5) I have had myself such dreams.

    Sentence (2) is grammatical. It's made up of the quasi-modal 'be going to X', where in X is a base verb, like "have". The verb "have" is transitive, but it can also have a kind of double-object structure, especially when it's used as a synonym for 'give', like this,

    I am going to have (i.e. give) you a party. :D (IO+DO)
    I am going to have (i.e. give) a party for you. :D (DO+IO)

    The above two sentences are indeed ditransitive. Now let's look at our example sentence.

    A. I am going to have myself some fun.
    B. I am going to have some fun for myself.

    Iff, 'have' is being used as a synonym for 'give', then A and B are ditransitive in structure, not to mention grammatical.

    Ditransitive
    A. I am going to have myself some fun. (IO+DO) :D
    B. I am going to have some fun for myself. (DO+IO) :D

    Iff, however, 'have' is not being used as a synonym for 'give', then A is ungrammatical.

    Transitive
    A. I am going to have myself some fun. (DO+DO) :(

    'have' being transitive in nature takes only one object. If there is more than one nominal within proximity to the verb, the first nominal (the one closest to the verb) functions as the verb's object, and the second nominal (the one further away from the verb) is taken to be added information.

    Transitive
    B. I am going to have some fun for myself. (DO)

    Here's the ambiguity:

    Ditransitive
    B1. I am going to have (i.e. give) some fun for myself.

    Transitive
    B2. I am going to have (i.e. have) some fun for myself.

    Lastly, sentence (5):

    I have had myself such dreams.

    First, 'have had' is transitive here; second, it's not being used as a synonym for 'give':

    I have given myself such dreams. :(
    I have had myself such dreams. :(

    Third, given that 'have' is transitive and, moreover, followed by two nominals, the first nominal is taken as the object, and the second, added information, making the sentence odd,

    I have had myself dreams. :(

    Iff, however, we add commas or a pause or change the intonantion, then the sentence's meaning comes through more clearly:

    I have had, myself, such dreams. :D
    I have had such dreams, myself. :D

    'myself' is not part of the verb+object unit. It's added information, so the speaker/writer needs to show us that so that we can understand her/his meaning. Anything else would result in miscommunication.

    So you see, you are both correct. 8)

    I hope that helps out some. If not, let's talk about it some more.

    All the best,

  9. #29
    Taka is offline Senior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • Japanese
      • Home Country:
      • Japan
      • Current Location:
      • Japan
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,074
    Post Thanks / Like
    Casiopea, have you forgotten that the verb "have" cannot be ditransitive, no matter what the intended meaning may be?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,970
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Taka
    Casiopea, have you forgotten that the verb "have" cannot be ditransitive, no matter what the intended meaning may be?
    Wow! You read that in 1 minute! Hmm.

    There are two meaning:

    1. have (possess)
    2. have (a synonym for give/hold)

    EX: I am going to have (i.e. give/hold) a party for you.
    EX: I am going to have (i.e. give/hold) you a party.

    When "have" is used to mean, "give/hold", it takes on a different structure. It adopts the structure of "give".

    All the best,

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Question tags
    By manishrvarma in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 13-Jan-2008, 20:54
  2. Question tags.
    By manishrvarma in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14-Jul-2004, 04:40
  3. Tag question
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2004, 11:11
  4. Ambiguous Question Interpretation
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 24-Apr-2004, 00:47
  5. Question about -ed phrases
    By Astro-D in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 26-Mar-2003, 20:13

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •