Discussion:
him/himself
Add Reply
a***@gmail.com
2020-02-14 06:51:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.

Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?

Gratefully,
Navi
Spains Harden
2020-02-14 08:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.
Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?
Gratefully,
Navi
Tim!?

1) God called Timothy to Him.
2) God called Timothy to Himself.

(2) is wrong. (1) sounds like good KJV English so in the context of "God"
might just about makes sense.
Spains Harden
2020-02-14 08:46:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.
Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?
Gratefully,
Navi
Tim!?
1) God called Timothy to Him.
2) God called Timothy to Himself.
(2) is wrong. (1) sounds like good KJV English so in the context of "God"
might just about makes sense.
Matthew 22:14 King James Version:

"For many are called, but few are chosen".
Peter Moylan
2020-02-14 09:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Spains Harden
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.
Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?
Gratefully,
Navi
Tim!?
1) God called Timothy to Him.
2) God called Timothy to Himself.
(2) is wrong. (1) sounds like good KJV English so in the context of "God"
might just about makes sense.
"For many are called, but few are chosen".
Or, depending on the climate,

"Many are cold but few are frozen".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
RH Draney
2020-02-14 10:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Spains Harden
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.
Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?
Gratefully,
Navi
Tim!?
1) God called Timothy to Him.
2) God called Timothy to Himself.
(2) is wrong. (1) sounds like good KJV English so in the context of "God"
might just about makes sense.
"For many are called, but few are chosen".
Or, depending on the climate,
"Many are cold but few are frozen".
"They also surf, who only stand and wade"....r
Peter T. Daniels
2020-02-14 13:48:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Spains Harden
"For many are called, but few are chosen".
Or, depending on the climate,
"Many are cold but few are frozen".
"They also surf, who only stand and wade"....r
--Harry Reasoner, commenting on a photo of Richard Nixon standing on a
Pacific beach after one of his daughters, rather implausibly, gave him
a surfboard for Christmas. (Probably written by Andy Rooney.)
Eric Walker
2020-02-14 09:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.
Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?
The "-self" pronouns are normally used in only a few well-defined cases:

a. Reflexively: "I bought myself a new coat."

b. Emphatically: "I myself saw him do it."

c. Absolute constructions: "Being an elected official myself, I
sympathized with him."

Uses such as those in (2) are frowned on, and (1) is the only acceptable
sentence of the pair.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Katy Jennison
2020-02-14 09:47:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.
Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?
a. Reflexively: "I bought myself a new coat."
b. Emphatically: "I myself saw him do it."
c. Absolute constructions: "Being an elected official myself, I
sympathized with him."
Uses such as those in (2) are frowned on, and (1) is the only acceptable
sentence of the pair.
The trouble with both these particular sentences is that they employ a
very specific religious idiom, which thumbs its nose at grammar. For
this sort of thing, you need to look at what wording is usual or
acceptable in the context in which the sentence might be written or
spoken, whether or not it's grammatical (about which I agree with Eric).
There are many set phrases used in religious circles; people simply
have to learn them (or are brought up hearing them), and ignore the grammar.

Now, if your sentences referred not to God but to the headmaster, or
Aunt Rachel, it would be different.
--
Katy Jennison
John Dunlop
2020-02-15 16:42:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
The trouble with both these particular sentences is that they employ a
very specific religious idiom, which thumbs its nose at grammar. For
this sort of thing, you need to look at what wording is usual or
acceptable in the context in which the sentence might be written or
spoken, whether or not it's grammatical (about which I agree with Eric).
There are many set phrases used in religious circles; people simply
have to learn them (or are brought up hearing them), and ignore the grammar.
Now, if your sentences referred not to God but to the headmaster, or
Aunt Rachel, it would be different.
Scotsman upon entering Heaven: "Oh, it's Yoursel'."
--
John
RH Draney
2020-02-15 19:57:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Katy Jennison
The trouble with both these particular sentences is that they employ a
very specific religious idiom, which thumbs its nose at grammar.  For
this sort of thing, you need to look at what wording is usual or
acceptable in the context in which the sentence might be written or
spoken, whether or not it's grammatical (about which I agree with Eric).
   There are many set phrases used in religious circles; people simply
have to learn them (or are brought up hearing them), and ignore the grammar.
Now, if your sentences referred not to God but to the headmaster, or
Aunt Rachel, it would be different.
Scotsman upon entering Heaven: "Oh, it's Yoursel'."
God's response: "you'll have had your tea"....r
Katy Jennison
2020-02-15 20:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by John Dunlop
Scotsman upon entering Heaven: "Oh, it's Yoursel'."
God's response: "you'll have had your tea"....r
<like>
--
Katy Jennison
Peter Young
2020-02-15 20:45:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Katy Jennison
The trouble with both these particular sentences is that they employ a
very specific religious idiom, which thumbs its nose at grammar.  For
this sort of thing, you need to look at what wording is usual or
acceptable in the context in which the sentence might be written or
spoken, whether or not it's grammatical (about which I agree with Eric).
   There are many set phrases used in religious circles; people simply
have to learn them (or are brought up hearing them), and ignore the grammar.
Now, if your sentences referred not to God but to the headmaster, or
Aunt Rachel, it would be different.
Scotsman upon entering Heaven: "Oh, it's Yoursel'."
God's response: "you'll have had your tea"....r
Assuming that God is from Edinburgh.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2020-02-15 23:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by RH Draney
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Katy Jennison
The trouble with both these particular sentences is that they employ a
very specific religious idiom, which thumbs its nose at grammar.  For
this sort of thing, you need to look at what wording is usual or
acceptable in the context in which the sentence might be written or
spoken, whether or not it's grammatical (about which I agree with Eric).
   There are many set phrases used in religious circles; people simply
have to learn them (or are brought up hearing them), and ignore the grammar.
Now, if your sentences referred not to God but to the headmaster, or
Aunt Rachel, it would be different.
Scotsman upon entering Heaven: "Oh, it's Yoursel'."
God's response: "you'll have had your tea"....r
Assuming that God is from Edinburgh.
Peter.
God is everywhere. He/she/it can speak in any language with any accent.
Presumably God will not speak to us in a language or accent from our
future.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2020-02-16 14:13:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
God is everywhere. He/she/it can speak in any language with any accent.
Presumably God will not speak to us in a language or accent from our
future.
A common sermon trope is that God reveals Themself to an individual
in a form that the individual can understand. For Moses, a Burning
Bush; for Elijah, a Still Small Voice after a Whirlwind; for Belshazzar,
a hand writing on a wall [the message was clear -- it simply meant 'a
couple of minas and change' -- only the interpretation wasn't], for
followers in 1st-c. Palestine, an itinerant carpenter-preacher but
to a select few in all Their glory (the Transfiguration; also Saul
on the Road to Damascus), and so on.
CDB
2020-02-16 23:55:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
God is everywhere. He/she/it can speak in any language with any
accent. Presumably God will not speak to us in a language or accent
from our future.
A common sermon trope is that God reveals Themself to an individual
in a form that the individual can understand. For Moses, a Burning
Bush; for Elijah, a Still Small Voice after a Whirlwind; for
Belshazzar, a hand writing on a wall [the message was clear -- it
simply meant 'a couple of minas and change' -- only the
interpretation wasn't], for followers in 1st-c. Palestine, an
itinerant carpenter-preacher but to a select few in all Their glory
(the Transfiguration; also Saul on the Road to Damascus), and so on.
The Elephant shows Emself as whatever body-part the blind man can reach.
Peter Moylan
2020-02-16 01:15:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Katy Jennison
The trouble with both these particular sentences is that they
employ a very specific religious idiom, which thumbs its nose at
grammar. For this sort of thing, you need to look at what wording
is usual or acceptable in the context in which the sentence might
be written or spoken, whether or not it's grammatical (about which
I agree with Eric). There are many set phrases used in religious
circles; people simply have to learn them (or are brought up
hearing them), and ignore the grammar.
Now, if your sentences referred not to God but to the headmaster,
or Aunt Rachel, it would be different.
Scotsman upon entering Heaven: "Oh, it's Yoursel'."
Three weeks ago the Newcastle Herald ran a cartoon showing Terry Jones
approaching the throne of God. Terry was saying "Brian!", and Brian
replied "Mother!"
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Jerry Friedman
2020-02-14 20:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.
Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?
a. Reflexively: "I bought myself a new coat."
b. Emphatically: "I myself saw him do it."
c. Absolute constructions: "Being an elected official myself, I
sympathized with him."
Uses such as those in (2) are frowned on, and (1) is the only acceptable
sentence of the pair.
The question is the boundaries of "reflexively". "I bought it for
myself" is fine but wouldn't usually be called reflexively. As a
former colleague said about an already-former CEO of our employer,
"She went into executive session with herself." That can't be "her".
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
2020-02-15 03:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.
Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?
a. Reflexively: "I bought myself a new coat."
b. Emphatically: "I myself saw him do it."
c. Absolute constructions: "Being an elected official myself, I
sympathized with him."
Uses such as those in (2) are frowned on, and (1) is the only
acceptable sentence of the pair.
The question is the boundaries of "reflexively". "I bought it for
myself" is fine but wouldn't usually be called reflexively. As a former
colleague said about an already-former CEO of our employer, "She went
into executive session with herself." That can't be "her".
Curme, _English Grammar_:

[Reflexive pronouns] refer to the subject of the proposition in which
they stand, indicating that the action performed by the doer passes back
to him: He is worrying himself to death.

I think that covers the cases at hand.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Peter T. Daniels
2020-02-15 15:22:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.
Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?
a. Reflexively: "I bought myself a new coat."
b. Emphatically: "I myself saw him do it."
c. Absolute constructions: "Being an elected official myself, I
sympathized with him."
Uses such as those in (2) are frowned on, and (1) is the only
acceptable sentence of the pair.
The question is the boundaries of "reflexively". "I bought it for
myself" is fine but wouldn't usually be called reflexively. As a former
colleague said about an already-former CEO of our employer, "She went
into executive session with herself." That can't be "her".
Still using a nearly-century-old high school book. He could at least
try to learn to read Curme's actual two-volume reference grammar.
Post by Eric Walker
[Reflexive pronouns] refer to the subject of the proposition in which
they stand, indicating that the action performed by the doer passes back
to him: He is worrying himself to death.
I think that covers the cases at hand.
That's as may be, but it certainly isn't an adequate description of
the uses of the reflexive pronouns. Why on earth would they be limited
to referring to a subject?
Jerry Friedman
2020-02-15 20:20:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) God called Tim to Him.
2) God called Tim to Himself.
Which is grammatical?
Which is idiomatic?
a. Reflexively: "I bought myself a new coat."
b. Emphatically: "I myself saw him do it."
c. Absolute constructions: "Being an elected official myself, I
sympathized with him."
Uses such as those in (2) are frowned on, and (1) is the only
acceptable sentence of the pair.
The question is the boundaries of "reflexively". "I bought it for
myself" is fine but wouldn't usually be called reflexively. As a former
colleague said about an already-former CEO of our employer, "She went
into executive session with herself." That can't be "her".
[Reflexive pronouns] refer to the subject of the proposition in which
they stand, indicating that the action performed by the doer passes back
to him: He is worrying himself to death.
I think that covers the cases at hand.
Full version:

"They refer to the subject of the proposition in which they stand,
indicating that the action performed by the doer passes back to him, or
is associated with him: 'He is worrying /himself/ to death.' 'I am
sitting by /myself/."

http://arrow.latrobe.edu.au/store/3/4/5/8/4/public/B12849443.pdf

I'd say that in "God called Tim to Him(self)," the action performed by
the doer is associated with Him and passes back to Him.
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
2020-02-16 09:03:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[Reflexive pronouns] refer to the subject of the proposition in which
they stand, indicating that the action performed by the doer passes
back to him: He is worrying himself to death.
I think that covers the cases at hand.
[...]
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'd say that in "God called Tim to Him(self)," the action performed by
the doer is associated with Him and passes back to Him.
I dunno.

a) "Jane called her young son to her."

b) "Jane called her young son to herself."

I find (a) perfectly natural, but (b) grates severely. Unless, as
someone upthread suggested, God necessitates different grammar than
anyone else, I just don't see the "to Himself" working.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2020-02-16 19:19:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 09:03:36 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[Reflexive pronouns] refer to the subject of the proposition in which
they stand, indicating that the action performed by the doer passes
back to him: He is worrying himself to death.
I think that covers the cases at hand.
[...]
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'd say that in "God called Tim to Him(self)," the action performed by
the doer is associated with Him and passes back to Him.
I dunno.
a) "Jane called her young son to her."
b) "Jane called her young son to herself."
I find (a) perfectly natural, but (b) grates severely. Unless, as
someone upthread suggested, God necessitates different grammar than
anyone else, I just don't see the "to Himself" working.
I agree that (b) is unnatural in almost all cases.

It might be used in a special context such as:

"Jane called out to her two sons. She told the older one to go to his
father and called her young son to herself."
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
2020-02-16 23:56:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[Reflexive pronouns] refer to the subject of the proposition in which
they stand, indicating that the action performed by the doer passes
back to him: He is worrying himself to death.
I think that covers the cases at hand.
[...]
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'd say that in "God called Tim to Him(self)," the action performed by
the doer is associated with Him and passes back to Him.
I dunno.
a) "Jane called her young son to her."
b) "Jane called her young son to herself."
I find (a) perfectly natural, but (b) grates severely. Unless, as
someone upthread suggested, God necessitates different grammar than
anyone else, I just don't see the "to Himself" working.
I think that's an argument that Curme's brief definition doesn't cover
all the cases. I wouldn't expect it to. This subject has a gray area
that presents a lot of difficulty, and I'm not sure that any simple
would apply to all the usages.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2020-02-17 14:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[Reflexive pronouns] refer to the subject of the proposition in which
they stand, indicating that the action performed by the doer passes
back to him: He is worrying himself to death.
I think that covers the cases at hand.
I'd say that in "God called Tim to Him(self)," the action performed by
the doer is associated with Him and passes back to Him.
I dunno.
a) "Jane called her young son to her."
b) "Jane called her young son to herself."
I find (a) perfectly natural, but (b) grates severely. Unless, as
someone upthread suggested, God necessitates different grammar than
anyone else, I just don't see the "to Himself" working.
I think that's an argument that Curme's brief definition doesn't cover
all the cases. I wouldn't expect it to. This subject has a gray area
that presents a lot of difficulty, and I'm not sure that any simple
would apply to all the usages.
Ok, you made me look. The discussion of reflexives occupies a full
half-page of the Syntax volume and no less than three pages, in two
places, in the Accidence volume. Apparently he was quite happy with
using "one/oneself" in place of "I/myself."

Loading...