headers
EngFor | 1 Jun 2008 09:41
Picon

File - ReminderLetter.txt


Hi everyone,

This letter is a monthly reminder for everyone in EngFor.

Please sign your posts and clean them up before you send them. By "cleaning up", I mean deleting the bulk of
previous posts that have accumulated due to multiple replies and long messages. Leave only enough to help
readers make sense of your response. Thanks.

** To beginning English learners: 

Please feel free to write messages about any topic or question. Do not let the advanced level of English of
some of our list members scare you off. We are here to help you learn. Make mistakes boldly. It is the best way
to learn and we have all studied at least one other language so we know what it is like.

** About corrections:

Our policy is that every mistake will be corrected, so you can trust what you read here to be correct, or
corrected soon thereafter. (Make sense?)

However: 

The exception to this policy is when a conversation gets going (which we encourage), we will not always go
through every message to give corrections unless we are specifically asked to do so. We want to encourage
the free flow of ideas and practice, practice, practice.

** To native English speakers:

You are encouraged to jump in and help with the corrections. We only ask that before you do so, you add your
information to the database of EngFor Subscribers so that people will know you have the knowledge and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tero Pesonen | 8 Jun 2008 11:53
Favicon

Re: On the use of reflexive pronouns such that they do not follow a personal pronoun

Hi!

I'd like to return to this question I posted a couple of weeks ago.  I 
now think if the writer is careful and adheres to the basics of clear 
and conscious writing, this question should not even come up excepting 
special cases where strict grammar rules tend to be dispensed with 
anyway. It seems to me a "real" sentence suffering from this problem 
can easily be recast, often improving it by removing redundancy or 
complicated structures. Coming up with meaningful sample sentences 
seems difficult enough, so perhaps pondering this topic is not of major 
practical relevance.

What do you think? 

Thanks,
Tero Pesonen

On Wednesday 21 May 2008, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I remember having read somewhere that one should never use a
> reflexive pronoun (myself, themselves, etc) unless it is preceded in
> the same sentence by at least one instance of the pronoun it is
> derived from (me -> myself, etc.). This means that "myself" can only
> be used in case it *follows* at least one "I" to which it refers. The
> same goes for "we - ourselves" and so forth.
>
> According to this, the following uses of reflexive pronouns would not
> be correct:
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Ann English | 8 Jun 2008 13:14
Picon

Re: On the use of reflexive pronouns such that they do not follow a personal pronoun


On 8/06/2008, at 9:53 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I'd like to return to this question ...
>> I remember having read somewhere that one should never use a
>> reflexive pronoun (myself, themselves, etc) unless it is preceded in
>> the same sentence by at least one instance of the pronoun it is
>> derived from (me -> myself, etc.). This means that "myself" can only
>> be used in case it *follows* at least one "I" to which it refers. The
>> same goes for "we - ourselves" and so forth.
>>
>> According to this, the following uses of reflexive pronouns would not
>> be correct:
>>
>> 1. Please do not attempt to replace the empty printer cartridge
>> _yourself_; to have the class administrator replace it during office
>> hours, please contact ...

Commands like "Stand!"", "Sit!", "Do not attempt ...!" are a sentence  
with the subject usually left out.  The subject is usually "You".  If  
the subject isn't "you", then for clarity it can be put in:  "Mary  
come here.  Everybody else stay still."

In Tero's sentence 1 the omitted "you" is still a perfectly good  
referent for the reflexive pronoun "yourself".  For style, I would  
leave it out.  "Do not attempt to replace the cartridge" is stronger  
than "Do not ... yourself."  There is possible confusion here with  
the adverb phrase "by yourself" which means "without assistance" or
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Haliman | 8 Jun 2008 16:19
Picon
Favicon

Re: On the use of reflexive pronouns such that they do not follow a personal pronoun

Hello Ann,

Let me try to translate your sentence into a simple English:  A white 
dog was chasing a big rabbit across a barren field.

Regards,
Haliman

Ann English wrote:

>
> On 8/06/2008, at 9:53 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to return to this question ...
> >> I remember having read somewhere that one should never use a
> >> reflexive pronoun (myself, themselves, etc) unless it is preceded in
> >> the same sentence by at least one instance of the pronoun it is
> >> derived from (me -> myself, etc.). This means that "myself" can only
> >> be used in case it *follows* at least one "I" to which it refers. The
> >> same goes for "we - ourselves" and so forth.
> >>
> >> According to this, the following uses of reflexive pronouns would not
> >> be correct:
> >>
> >> 1. Please do not attempt to replace the empty printer cartridge
> >> _yourself_; to have the class administrator replace it during office
> >> hours, please contact ...
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bill Kelly | 8 Jun 2008 18:28

Re: On the use of reflexive pronouns such that they do not follow a personal pronoun

Hi Tero!

* conscious writing -> conscientious writing

* I think the real issue is simply that you should not use a reflexive 
construction when a pronoun in the objective case is called for:

a. Wrong: Prizes were awarded to Bob, Pete, and myself.
b. Correct: Prizes were awarded to Bob, Pete, and me.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with your sentences 1 and 2 below.

By the way, you should keep in mind that in English the "Xself" 
construction is used both for the true reflexive and for a "false 
reflexive," the true purpose of which is intensification:

c. He gave himself a pat on the back. [true reflexive]
d. He himself will be there. [intensifier]
e. He himself will be there patting himself on the back. [both]

In German, the true reflexive would be handled via some form of "sich," 
and the intensifier by "selbst" or "selber."

Bill Kelly
Connecticut USA

--

Tero Pesonen wrote:
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tero Pesonen | 8 Jun 2008 18:34
Favicon

Re: On the use of reflexive pronouns such that they do not follow a personal pronoun

On Sunday 08 June 2008, Ann English wrote:
> On 8/06/2008, at 9:53 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to return to this question ...
> >
> >> I remember having read somewhere that one should never use a
> >> reflexive pronoun (myself, themselves, etc) unless it is preceded
> >> in the same sentence by at least one instance of the pronoun it is
> >> derived from (me -> myself, etc.). This means that "myself" can
> >> only be used in case it *follows* at least one "I" to which it
> >> refers. The same goes for "we - ourselves" and so forth.
> >>
> >> According to this, the following uses of reflexive pronouns would
> >> not be correct:
> >>
> >> 1. Please do not attempt to replace the empty printer cartridge
> >> _yourself_; to have the class administrator replace it during
> >> office hours, please contact ...
>
> Commands like "Stand!"", "Sit!", "Do not attempt ...!" are a sentence
> with the subject usually left out.  The subject is usually "You".  If
> the subject isn't "you", then for clarity it can be put in:  "Mary
> come here.  Everybody else stay still."
>
> In Tero's sentence 1 the omitted "you" is still a perfectly good
> referent for the reflexive pronoun "yourself".  For style, I would
> leave it out.  "Do not attempt to replace the cartridge" is stronger
> than "Do not ... yourself."  There is possible confusion here with
> the adverb phrase "by yourself" which means "without assistance" or
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Tero Pesonen | 8 Jun 2008 18:38
Favicon

Re: On the use of reflexive pronouns such that they do not follow a personal pronoun

Of course, 21st century ought to have been 20th century. 

Tero

On Sunday 08 June 2008, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> On Sunday 08 June 2008, Ann English wrote:
> > On 8/06/2008, at 9:53 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I'd like to return to this question ...
> > >
> > >> I remember having read somewhere that one should never use a
> > >> reflexive pronoun (myself, themselves, etc) unless it is
> > >> preceded in the same sentence by at least one instance of the
> > >> pronoun it is derived from (me -> myself, etc.). This means that
> > >> "myself" can only be used in case it *follows* at least one "I"
> > >> to which it refers. The same goes for "we - ourselves" and so
> > >> forth.
> > >>
> > >> According to this, the following uses of reflexive pronouns
> > >> would not be correct:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Please do not attempt to replace the empty printer cartridge
> > >> _yourself_; to have the class administrator replace it during
> > >> office hours, please contact ...
> >
> > Commands like "Stand!"", "Sit!", "Do not attempt ...!" are a
> > sentence with the subject usually left out.  The subject is usually
> > "You".  If the subject isn't "you", then for clarity it can be put
> > in:  "Mary come here.  Everybody else stay still."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Tero Pesonen | 8 Jun 2008 18:52
Favicon

Re: On the use of reflexive pronouns such that they do not follow a personal pronoun

On Sunday 08 June 2008, Bill Kelly wrote:
> Hi Tero!
>
> * conscious writing -> conscientious writing

Good point! Thanks!

> * I think the real issue is simply that you should not use a
> reflexive construction when a pronoun in the objective case is called
> for:
>
> a. Wrong: Prizes were awarded to Bob, Pete, and myself.
> b. Correct: Prizes were awarded to Bob, Pete, and me.
>
> In my opinion there is nothing wrong with your sentences 1 and 2
> below.

OK. 

> By the way, you should keep in mind that in English the "Xself"
> construction is used both for the true reflexive and for a "false
> reflexive," the true purpose of which is intensification:
>
> c. He gave himself a pat on the back. [true reflexive]
> d. He himself will be there. [intensifier]
> e. He himself will be there patting himself on the back. [both]
>
> In German, the true reflexive would be handled via some form of
> "sich," and the intensifier by "selbst" or "selber."
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tero Pesonen | 9 Jun 2008 09:59
Favicon

Re: On the use of reflexive pronouns such that they do not follow a personal pronoun

On Sunday 08 June 2008, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> Of course, 21st century ought to have been 20th century.
>

And literacy is not literature. One can measure literacy, but perhaps 
not literature. A literacy campaign aims at making the illiterate 
literate. 

Is "literature work" redundant? If I'm reading literature works, I'm 
reading literature. Literature engulfs all which could possibly fall 
under its umbrella, so every work of literature is literature. Or is 
it?

In a sentence such as, "I've been reading early 20th century literature 
(works) ...", would a native speaker perceive "literature work" or just 
plain "literature" as referring to something more high-brow than just 
any random books or fiction? In other words, does literature as a 
general noun (i.e. not referring to a particular field of study or 
something similarly obvious) connote in English "higher forms" of the 
written word? 

Tero

------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: EngFor-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Natasha The Bear | 9 Jun 2008 10:16
Picon
Favicon

Re: On the use of reflexive pronouns such that they do not follow a personal pronoun

Yes, "Literature works" is redundant. You read or study literature--not literature works.
There are great works of literature--but not literature works.
And, yes, every work of literature is literature--but not all that is written is literature.
Generally, when a native-speaker speaks of literature it does connote a higher form of published works.
For example, the very popular Harry Potter novels although coming under the overall blanket of literature
would not be considered literature in the classical sense---but maybe someday.
&nbsp;
Natasha

--- On Mon, 6/9/08, Tero Pesonen &lt;teropesonen <at> tuffmail.com&gt; wrote:

From: Tero Pesonen &lt;teropesonen <at> tuffmail.com&gt;
Subject: Re: [EngFor] On the use of reflexive pronouns such that they do not follow a personal pronoun
To: EngFor <at> yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 9, 2008, 3:59 AM

On Sunday 08 June 2008, Tero Pesonen wrote:
&gt; Of course, 21st century ought to have been 20th century.
&gt;

And literacy is not literature. One can measure literacy, but perhaps 
not literature. A literacy campaign aims at making the illiterate 
literate. 

Is "literature work" redundant? If I'm reading literature works, I'm 
reading literature. Literature engulfs all which could possibly fall 
under its umbrella, so every work of literature is literature. Or is 
it?

In a sentence such as, "I've been reading early 20th century literature
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane