Author Topic: Pronouns (Read 10861 times)

goofy · « **Reply #25 on:** March 24, 2008, 10:41:47 AM »

I've never understood this argument that good writers are allowed to break "the rules". Does this mean that the rest of us should strive for mediocrity?

Jonathon · « **Reply #26 on:** March 24, 2008, 10:43:40 AM »

I've heard English teachers say things like "When you're Shakespeare, you can break the rules." I guess the rules are like training wheels, except that you have to keep them on until you're one of the best cyclists that's ever lived.

pooka · « **Reply #27 on:** March 24, 2008, 10:51:06 AM »

It is an extension of the notion that you must master the rules before creating in music. There are a lot of rules about what constitutes a well formed musical composition, but if everyone followed them, there would be no new music.

The other day I decided to split the difference between King James English and Shakespeare's English to call the English of that time Pre-Colonial English. I do think the conduct of the Empire caused things to happen to English, some to change it, some to make it more resistant to change. I had been noticing some idioms as I was listening to Psalms that people had criticized (when they appear in the Book of Mormon) as following Shakespeare. But it turns out the King James Version was largely based on a text that pre-dated Shakespeare. So I would tend to argue that "that valley from whose bourne no traveller may return" probably came to Shakespeare from the Psalms. I don't really have a Great Bible at my disposal to back that up, unfortunately.

Jonathon · « **Reply #28 on:** March 24, 2008, 10:56:54 AM »

I think that period is usually called Early Modern English.

And are you talking about the Tyndale Bible? I suppose that did predate Shakespeare.

pooka · « **Reply #29 on:** March 24, 2008, 11:01:33 AM »

Oh, okay. Not, it was after Tyndale, unless the Tyndale Bible was colloquially known as the Great Bible. There was also something called the Bishop's bible. Did you know part of the directives guiding the KJV was that it have no annotations, because the bible in current use (which I believe is the Great Bible) had a lot of footnotes that were considered incendiary?

Jonathon · « **Reply #30 on:** March 24, 2008, 11:10:45 AM »

I don't know what the Great Bible or Bishop's Bible was. I've heard from a few different sources that the KJV was based largely on Tyndale's work, though.

goofy · « **Reply #31 on:** March 24, 2008, 11:18:46 AM »

Quote

It is an extension of the notion that you must master the rules before creating in music. There are a lot of rules about what constitutes a well formed musical composition, but if everyone followed them, there would be no new music.

I'm not sure that analogy works. Given the number and possible combinations of English words, there is still a lot that can be written that has never been written before, while still following the rules - whichever of the 2 kinds of rules of grammar we're talking about.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #32 on:** March 24, 2008, 02:28:51 PM »

Chaucer coulden't spelle for beannes.

The Genuine · « **Reply #33 on:** March 24, 2008, 10:40:26 PM »

When are Xselfs (e.g. myself, itself, themselves) appropriate over a simple me/it/them ?

Jonathon · « **Reply #34 on:** March 25, 2008, 08:53:52 AM »

They're pretty much required in reflexive constructions ("He hit himself") and some emphatic constructions ("I don't care for black jellybeans myself"). I'm guessing you're talking about other constructions, like "Please return it to either Bob or myself" or "Either Bob or myself can help you." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage has a great entry on those, so I'll just link to it. Though if you have any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

The basic gist of the article is that it's not ungrammatical, though a lot of people consider it a stylistic sin. If you use it—especially if you overuse it—some people will likely frown on it, but that doesn't mean you always need to avoid it. My personal opinion on it: I think it sounds a little awkward at best and stilted at worst. I don't use it myself.

The Genuine · « **Reply #35 on:** March 25, 2008, 12:39:09 PM »

Thanks!

Jonathon · « **Reply #36 on:** March 25, 2008, 12:50:00 PM »

De nada.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #37 on:** March 25, 2008, 01:58:17 PM »

Quote

I don't use it myself.

Do you use it when you are with someone else?

Jonathon · « **Reply #38 on:** March 25, 2008, 02:02:54 PM »

I don't understand the question.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #39 on:** March 25, 2008, 02:10:09 PM »

I don't use it [by] myself.

Jonathon · « **Reply #40 on:** March 25, 2008, 02:12:57 PM »

But that's not what I said or meant. I was just saying that I don't use "myself" as an object or subject. The "myself" there was emphatic.

(Sorry if you're trying to be funny and I'm killing it, but I guess I don't get it.)

The Genuine · « **Reply #41 on:** March 26, 2008, 11:14:57 AM »

She was trying to be funny.

Having all these emoticons is great!

pooka · « **Reply #42 on:** March 26, 2008, 11:20:09 AM »

I laughed, but it may or may not have been out loud.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #43 on:** March 26, 2008, 11:49:37 AM »

L(momnb)OL!

The Genuine · « **Reply #44 on:** March 26, 2008, 03:06:37 PM »

"Email exchange between Lee and me."

or

"Email exchange between Lee and myself."

rivka · « **Reply #45 on:** March 26, 2008, 03:07:20 PM »

Lee and I exchanged emails.

The Genuine · « **Reply #46 on:** March 26, 2008, 03:09:07 PM »

Actually, it's more like

"Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and complete copy of a November 9, 2006 email exchange between Lee and me/myself."

rivka · « **Reply #47 on:** March 26, 2008, 03:14:17 PM »

Ah. Well, the general rule about trying to make a sentence simpler when possible clearly does not apply to legalese.

The Genuine · « **Reply #48 on:** March 26, 2008, 03:18:40 PM »

:devil:

Jonathon · « **Reply #49 on:** March 26, 2008, 03:36:04 PM »

Quote

"Email exchange between Lee and me."

or

"Email exchange between Lee and myself."

The former is always correct and unobjectionable. The latter incurs the wrath of some usage commentators and editors, though technically there's nothing wrong with it. As I said before, I personally don't like this usage, but I have to admit that there's some part of me that find it entirely appropriate if not preferable in legalese—probably because it's fitting with a style that never uses a small word when there's a bigger one available.