Question!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Taka

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Casiopea said:
No insult taken. :D Asking questions is the first step in learning.

I'm glad to hear that.

Casiopea said:
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.
 

blacknomi

Key Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Member Type
Student or Learner
Taka said:
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. :lol: 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. :lol: :lol: :lol:

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

I am looking forward to hearing from you.


sabrina
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Taka said:
Casiopea said:
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).

Taka said:
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,
 
T

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
 

Taka

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
blacknomi said:
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.

blacknomi said:
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.
 
T

Taroimo

Guest
Just a quick reply, Taka.

Taka said:
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
 

Taka

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Taroimo said:
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?

Taroimo said:
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.

Taroimo said:
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.
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Taroimo said:
(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,
 

Taka

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Casiopea, have you forgotten that the verb "have" cannot be ditransitive, no matter what the intended meaning may be?
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Taka said:
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,
 

Taka

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Casiopea said:
Wow! You read that in 1 minute! Hmm.

Strictly, not in 1 minute.

Casiopea said:
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".

Nope. I've checked again all of my dictionaries, but none of them says "have" can have such a structure.

Is that usage one of your Canadian dialect? No..., first of all, are you the same Casiopea who said this?:

Casiopea said:
Taka said:
Casiopea said:
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).

If you are the same person, I have to say that you are very inconsistent and confusing...(Actually, I was impressed by the analysis above and I thought that was the conlusion of this discussion).
 

blacknomi

Key Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Member Type
Student or Learner
Taka said:
blacknomi said:
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.


gam ba de ne! (Sorry for poor Japanese.)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
T

Taroimo

Guest
A response to Taka

Taka said:
Ambiguous, it may be; I should say it is "confusing".

If there is a way to disambiguate those sentences, say, by intonation or punctuation, they shouldn't be confusing. That's what I'm trying to achieve here.

Taka said:
Anyway, you didn't use the word "ambiguous" in another forum, but said, seemingly with confidence, "it is an indirect object", didn't you?

Yes, but I'm not trying to defend it here. When I wrote that posting (sorry, people, for talking about a posting elsewhere), the possibility of the emphatic reflexive didn't occur to me. Now that I've realized, thanks to you, that the emphatic reflexive is a possibility, I'm looking for a way to distinguish between the emphatic reflexive and the indirect object.

Taka said:
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.

It may well be an overgeneralization to extend the emphatic-reflexive theory to cases where an indirect object is possible, right?

Taka said:
Taroimo said:
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.

So are you saying that all the reflexive pronouns that occur between a verb and its object are instances of the emphatic reflexive, regardless of whether the verb is monotransitive or ditransitive?

Taka said:
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?

No, I wouldn't. I thought it would be natural to take it as an indirect object in the case of ditransitive verbs with a regular intonation pattern.

Taka said:
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.

If we can be sure that what we are looking at is a uniform phenomenon. There is always a danger of overgeneralization/oversimplification, isnt' there? When we collapse two cases into one, we'd better check if those two cases behave in the same way in various aspects, right? Intonation being one of them.

Taroimo
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Taka said:
tdol said:
It's wrong because it doesn't make sense- the position suggests that it is what you saw- I saw myself- and this doesn't connect with the accident.

Then, what about this one?

I saw myself the next car back.

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/james_taylor/traffic_jam.html

It makes sense if you put yourself in the speaker's place. He is imagining himself in the car behind him. Thus, he is able to "see himself" from that car. Of course, you can't normally see yourself from outside of yourself, but that is what that means.

:)
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Taka said:
tdol said:
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_relations/news/patten/speech_01_192.htm

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

It would have been better to have quoted the entire sentence, thus:
  • I went to Colombia a few weeks ago and I saw myself the complexities and fragility of the peace-building process.

Neither the second I nor myself is needed there, and myself should definitely have been omitted. The speech is verbose and turgid. The speaker comes across as trying very hard to impress people.

It is an especially worthy goal to say what you mean and mean what you say. If you can do that consistently you will have accomplished much.

:)

[Edited to correct my mistakes.]
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Taka said:
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...

I think you meant detailed explanation, eh? :)

I would say some fun is the direct object there, and myself is the indirect object.

:)
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
"I am going to have myself some fun" looks perfectly good to me. It is not, I think, necessarily ambiguous. It would have to occur within some kind of context, and the context would probably clear up any possible ambiguity.

:)
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Something can be either a reflexive or an indirect pronoun, but not both.

:)
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Casiopea said:
Transitive verbs can handle one object only, never two.

I am not sure I understand. A verb can't have two objects? What about:
  • I saw the bike and the rider.

:?:
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Say:
  • That cleared up some doubts I had been having.

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top