<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Misuses of &#8220;myself&#8221; and &#8220;yourself&#8221;&#8230; from 1840.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/</link>
	<description>Prescriptivism Must Die!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 23:54:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dana Cohen</title>
		<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/#comment-12848</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dana Cohen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:27:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=3541#comment-12848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#039;s a wide range of reflexives that cannot be accounted for by Binding A, and a wide range of literature to try and account for them. The examples here are not emphatic, but referential. The terms you&#039;re looking for are logophoricity, point of view reflexives and long distance reflexives. For some intro and discussion of some of the literature, see Reuland, E. (2007) Logophoricity, in The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (eds M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk), Blackwell Publishing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s a wide range of reflexives that cannot be accounted for by Binding A, and a wide range of literature to try and account for them. The examples here are not emphatic, but referential. The terms you&#8217;re looking for are logophoricity, point of view reflexives and long distance reflexives. For some intro and discussion of some of the literature, see Reuland, E. (2007) Logophoricity, in The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (eds M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk), Blackwell Publishing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David L. Gold</title>
		<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/#comment-12819</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David L. Gold]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 04:39:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=3541#comment-12819</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since emphatic use of English &quot;self&quot; is recorded for as early as the mid ninth century (see the entry for &quot;myself&quot; in The Oxford English Dictionary), the Dutch cognate of that morpheme (zelf) is likewise used emphatically (as in &quot;wat kan ik zelf doen?&quot; &#039;what can I myself do?&#039;), as are the German cognate (selbst), as in &quot;du hast es selbst gesagt&quot; &#039;you said so yourself, you yourself said so&#039; (see Shanster&#039;s comment of 8 October 2012), and the Swedish one (själv), as in &quot;hur är det med dig själv?&quot; &#039;how&#039;s yourself?&#039;, this could well be a usage of Proto-Germanic origin. In any case, our feeling that certain uses of emphatic &quot;self&quot; are now nonstandard (&quot;I&#039;m fine. How&#039;s yourself?&quot;) might be the result of certain prescriptivists&#039; successfully though unjustifiedly hammering into generation after generation of school children the notion that such uses are wrong.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since emphatic use of English &#8220;self&#8221; is recorded for as early as the mid ninth century (see the entry for &#8220;myself&#8221; in The Oxford English Dictionary), the Dutch cognate of that morpheme (zelf) is likewise used emphatically (as in &#8220;wat kan ik zelf doen?&#8221; &#8216;what can I myself do?&#8217;), as are the German cognate (selbst), as in &#8220;du hast es selbst gesagt&#8221; &#8216;you said so yourself, you yourself said so&#8217; (see Shanster&#8217;s comment of 8 October 2012), and the Swedish one (själv), as in &#8220;hur är det med dig själv?&#8221; &#8216;how&#8217;s yourself?&#8217;, this could well be a usage of Proto-Germanic origin. In any case, our feeling that certain uses of emphatic &#8220;self&#8221; are now nonstandard (&#8220;I&#8217;m fine. How&#8217;s yourself?&#8221;) might be the result of certain prescriptivists&#8217; successfully though unjustifiedly hammering into generation after generation of school children the notion that such uses are wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ambermartingale</title>
		<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/#comment-11814</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ambermartingale]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=3541#comment-11814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shanster</title>
		<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/#comment-11425</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shanster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=3541#comment-11425</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When translating a German text, I came across an intensifying reflexive pronoun, like &quot;ich selbst&quot; or it may have been &quot;ich selber&quot;, and I didn&#039;t want to translate it &quot;I, myself&quot; because I just don&#039;t like the sound of it in English.  I know it&#039;s perfectly fine, but I still used some convoluted construction to avoid it. I, myself, feel that this construction is redundantly redundant.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When translating a German text, I came across an intensifying reflexive pronoun, like &#8220;ich selbst&#8221; or it may have been &#8220;ich selber&#8221;, and I didn&#8217;t want to translate it &#8220;I, myself&#8221; because I just don&#8217;t like the sound of it in English.  I know it&#8217;s perfectly fine, but I still used some convoluted construction to avoid it. I, myself, feel that this construction is redundantly redundant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan M.</title>
		<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/#comment-11420</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan M.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:03:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=3541#comment-11420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is there any quick-and-dirty paraphrase of &quot;c-commanding argument&quot; that would make this understandable to a layman?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any quick-and-dirty paraphrase of &#8220;c-commanding argument&#8221; that would make this understandable to a layman?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ProsWrite</title>
		<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/#comment-11416</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ProsWrite]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=3541#comment-11416</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#039;s one explanation, resurrected from a source read during my grad school days: Parker, RIley &amp; Meyer (1990) &quot;Untriggered reflexive pronouns in English&quot; American Speech, 65(1), 50-69.

First, URs [untriggered reflexives] that are unacceptable as single NPs gain acceptability in coordi­nate  NPs, as illustrated by sentences like: *Myself/several of the employees and the myself wrote to the chairman. This phenomenon is explained if we assume that NP node dominating a coordinate NP serves as a barrier to government, thereby blocking normal rules of case assignment.  Thus, where we would expect to find, say, only objective case (e.g., me), we find both nominative and reflexive forms as well (e.g., I and  myself). In such constructions, DRs seem to be alternative forms of personal pronouns rather than true anaphors.

Second, URs that are unacceptable in single NPs become acceptable in postgeneric NPs, as exemplified by There are groups for ?yourself/people like yourself: This phenomenon is explained if we assume that a single  reflexive subject has no c-commanding argument and thus cannot be properly bound. On the other hand, the object of a postgeneric PP does have a c-commanding argument and  CAN  be properly bound. In such  constructions, reflexives are not actually &quot;untriggered&quot; at all, but,  rather, have the properties of true ana­phors.

Third, URs can supplant the corresponding personal pronouns even outside of coordinate structures and  postgeneric PPs, as shown by sentences like: This is a photograph of me/myself. This phenomenon reflects the different discourse functions of personal and reflexive pronouns: personal pronouns have an exophoric function and identify a discourse participant, while reflexive pronouns have an anaphoric function and  identify a discourse referent.

Finally, first and second person URs are relatively more acceptable than third person URs, as exemplified by sentences like:  This is a photograph of myself/yourself/?himself.  These judgments are explained once we recognize that only first and second person pronouns can refer to discourse partici­pants. Thus, the distinction between third person personal pronouns and URs serves no discourse function, since third person pronouns necessarily identify a discourse referent.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s one explanation, resurrected from a source read during my grad school days: Parker, RIley &amp; Meyer (1990) &#8220;Untriggered reflexive pronouns in English&#8221; American Speech, 65(1), 50-69.</p>
<p>First, URs [untriggered reflexives] that are unacceptable as single NPs gain acceptability in coordi­nate  NPs, as illustrated by sentences like: *Myself/several of the employees and the myself wrote to the chairman. This phenomenon is explained if we assume that NP node dominating a coordinate NP serves as a barrier to government, thereby blocking normal rules of case assignment.  Thus, where we would expect to find, say, only objective case (e.g., me), we find both nominative and reflexive forms as well (e.g., I and  myself). In such constructions, DRs seem to be alternative forms of personal pronouns rather than true anaphors.</p>
<p>Second, URs that are unacceptable in single NPs become acceptable in postgeneric NPs, as exemplified by There are groups for ?yourself/people like yourself: This phenomenon is explained if we assume that a single  reflexive subject has no c-commanding argument and thus cannot be properly bound. On the other hand, the object of a postgeneric PP does have a c-commanding argument and  CAN  be properly bound. In such  constructions, reflexives are not actually &#8220;untriggered&#8221; at all, but,  rather, have the properties of true ana­phors.</p>
<p>Third, URs can supplant the corresponding personal pronouns even outside of coordinate structures and  postgeneric PPs, as shown by sentences like: This is a photograph of me/myself. This phenomenon reflects the different discourse functions of personal and reflexive pronouns: personal pronouns have an exophoric function and identify a discourse participant, while reflexive pronouns have an anaphoric function and  identify a discourse referent.</p>
<p>Finally, first and second person URs are relatively more acceptable than third person URs, as exemplified by sentences like:  This is a photograph of myself/yourself/?himself.  These judgments are explained once we recognize that only first and second person pronouns can refer to discourse partici­pants. Thus, the distinction between third person personal pronouns and URs serves no discourse function, since third person pronouns necessarily identify a discourse referent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: goofy</title>
		<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/#comment-11410</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[goofy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2012 22:51:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=3541#comment-11410</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is this really nonstandard? MWDEU has a long list of examples from well-regarded writers. The examples include conjoined pronouns, one of which is &quot;self&quot;, appositive use (like Gabe&#039;s first example), object of a verb, and object of a preposition. The only place it&#039;s not found is as the sole subject.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is this really nonstandard? MWDEU has a long list of examples from well-regarded writers. The examples include conjoined pronouns, one of which is &#8220;self&#8221;, appositive use (like Gabe&#8217;s first example), object of a verb, and object of a preposition. The only place it&#8217;s not found is as the sole subject.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan M.</title>
		<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/#comment-11394</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan M.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:56:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=3541#comment-11394</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think any attempt to count instances of &quot;*self&quot;, in an attempt to find uses that you&#039;re calling non-standard here, is going to find &quot;his/herself&quot; substantially more frequent than &quot;yourself&quot; for the simple fact that the standard use, in which &quot;-self&quot; disambiguates whether another pronoun has the same or a different referent, there is almost never need to distinguish between two &quot;you&quot;s, thus making standard &quot;him/herself&quot; vastly more common.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think any attempt to count instances of &#8220;*self&#8221;, in an attempt to find uses that you&#8217;re calling non-standard here, is going to find &#8220;his/herself&#8221; substantially more frequent than &#8220;yourself&#8221; for the simple fact that the standard use, in which &#8220;-self&#8221; disambiguates whether another pronoun has the same or a different referent, there is almost never need to distinguish between two &#8220;you&#8221;s, thus making standard &#8220;him/herself&#8221; vastly more common.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: This Week&#8217;s Language Blog Roundup: Banned Books Week, grammar wars, and more &#124; Wordnik</title>
		<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/#comment-11392</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[This Week&#8217;s Language Blog Roundup: Banned Books Week, grammar wars, and more &#124; Wordnik]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=3541#comment-11392</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Liz Potter gave us some tips on maybe versus perhaps. Meanwhile, Motivated Grammar declared that misuses of myself and yourself are nothing [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Liz Potter gave us some tips on maybe versus perhaps. Meanwhile, Motivated Grammar declared that misuses of myself and yourself are nothing [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mar Rojo</title>
		<link>http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/misuses-of-myself-and-yourself-from-1840/#comment-11385</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mar Rojo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:17:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=3541#comment-11385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Crystal touches on it here:

&quot; Usages such as Jane and myself went to the cinema and They saw John and myself in the street are on the increase - an ancient usage, which remained alive only in a few regional varieties, notably Irish English, but which is widespread in British English now. (And outside of Britain? Comments, please.) So expect to see more examples of this in the next generation of book and film titles. We&#039;ve already had Oscar Wilde and Myself, My Father and Myself, and a few others. If they ever remake the cult film, and feel the need to retitle, it could be Withnail and Myself. &gt;&quot;

http://david-crystal.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/on-marley-and-mei.html]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Crystal touches on it here:</p>
<p>&#8221; Usages such as Jane and myself went to the cinema and They saw John and myself in the street are on the increase &#8211; an ancient usage, which remained alive only in a few regional varieties, notably Irish English, but which is widespread in British English now. (And outside of Britain? Comments, please.) So expect to see more examples of this in the next generation of book and film titles. We&#8217;ve already had Oscar Wilde and Myself, My Father and Myself, and a few others. If they ever remake the cult film, and feel the need to retitle, it could be Withnail and Myself. &gt;&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://david-crystal.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/on-marley-and-mei.html" rel="nofollow">http://david-crystal.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/on-marley-and-mei.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
