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.
(1b) I found, myself, a perfectly smooth rock.
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).
DO+IO: I found a rock for myself.
IO+DO: I found myself a rock.
We could also add to that structure
a means,
IO+DO: I found myself a rock
by myself.
DO+IO: I found a rock for myself
by myself.
The 'by myself' phrase functions as
an adverb. We can move it around, like this,
I,
myself, found myself a rock.
I,
myself, found a rock for myself.
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.
==> Meaning: I found (by myself) a rock. (i.e. I am the person who found the rock)
2. I found myself a rock.
==> 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.
(I did it by myself) MEANS
2. I found myself a rock.
(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.
(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.
(IO+DO)
I am going to have (i.e. give) a party for you.
(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)
B. I am going to have some fun
for myself. (DO+
IO)
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.
I have had such dreams, myself.
'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,
