# what jobs are suitable for yourself/you



## chris wong

I do not know which one is correct.

1. While considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should...
2. While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ...

Thanks


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

I would say that the grammatically correct usage here is "yourself" because the implicit subject of that dependent clause is "you" (while you are considering...) and so you should use the reflexive in this case.

However, I find it difficult to convince myself that one is "wrong" from a natural-usage standpoint.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

chris wong said:


> I do not know which one is correct.
> 
> 1. While considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should...
> 2. While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ...
> 
> Thanks


You can say either, Chris.

*Yourself* would be suitable in cases where you'd just been considering jobs for other people.  In other cases *yourself *could easily sound a bit too grand, and you'd be better with *you*.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Going off of what Thomas says, "you" probably sounds more normal in everyday language.

Meanwhile, "yourself" would be correct on a grammar exam (unless someone views the strictly grammatical aspect differently).

edit: this is the wrong grammatical analysis because it ignores "jobs are..."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't know what might make someone suggest that _yourself_ is in some way more 'correct' here.  There's absolutely nothing incorrect about the first sentence, in my view.


----------



## chris wong

I thought yourself was the correct one.
 What Estoy said "the implicit subject of that dependent clause is "you"" is exactly my point.
But it seems that both are acceptable now?


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

chris wong said:


> I thought yourself was the correct one.
> What Estoy said "the implicit subject of that dependent clause is "you"" is exactly my point.
> But it seems that both are acceptable now?



Chris, what we have here appears to be a difference in what's "correct" between grammatical rules and natural usage.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't know what might make someone suggest that _yourself_ is in some way more 'correct' here.  There's absolutely nothing incorrect about the first sentence, in my view.



That's merely from a prescriptive grammatical standpoint. "You" would be wrong from that standpoint for essentially the same reason that "I buy me some food" would be wrong in grammar books compared to "I buy myself some food."

edit: once again, this is the wrong grammatical analysis because it ignores "jobs are..." in the original.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo.

I couldn't agree with Thomas more.
The fact that the implicit subject is "you" has hardly anything to do with the choice of the personal pronoun following "for". If we make it "explicit", I believe the sentence with "you" would still be perfectly acceptable: "While you are considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should...". 

GS


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo.
> 
> I couldn't agree with Thomas more.
> The fact that the implicit subject is "you" has hardly anything to do with the choice of the perusal pronoun following "for". If we make it "explicit", I believe the sentence with "you" would still be perfectly acceptable: "While you are considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should...".
> 
> GS



Grammarians would tell you that this is wrong because you're supposed to use the reflexive in this case.


Chris, if you wanted to make a counter-argument to this (which I will try to do myself), you could say that the subordinate clause changes the subject from "you" to some other thing and hence, grammatically that thing acts upon "you" and not upon "yourself" (because "you" is no longer the subject of this second clause as I wrote).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

estoy_lerniendo said:


> Chris, what we have here appears to be a difference in what's "correct" between grammatical rules and natural usage.


I'm just at a loss to know what you mean by a 'grammatical rule' here.

The reflexive pronoun is not used as much in English as in some languages.

It's often used when the direct object of a verb is the same as the subject.

It's mostly used after prepositions to avoid ambiguity - the difference between _He looked at himself_ and_ he looked at him_ (ie. someone other than himself).

I'd make two points about this case:

1.  The subject of the sentence, _you_, has not yet appeared, so _yourself_ would be anticipating it.

This wouldn't matter much if the sentence read_ When considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should... : _I'd definitely prefer_ When considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should...

_But here we have the importantly different_ While considering what jobs are suitable for you...  _The concessive overtones of that _while_ remove the grammatical need for a reflexive pronoun, in my view.

2.  I cannot see an issue of ambiguity here, so I don't see that the reflexive is required.



estoy_lerniendo said:


> Grammarians would tell you that this is  wrong because you're supposed to use the reflexive in this case.[...]


I don't believe this to be true, EL.  Can you produce any supporting evidence for your statement?


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm just at a loss to know what you mean by a 'grammatical rule' here.
> 
> The reflexive pronoun is not used as much in English as in some languages.
> 
> It's often used when the direct object of a verb is the same as the subject.
> 
> It's mostly used after prepositions to avoid ambiguity - the difference between _He looked at himself_ and_ he looked at him_ (ie. someone other than himself).
> 
> I'd make two points about this case:
> 
> 1.  The subject of the sentence, _you_, has not yet appeared, so _yourself_ would be anticipating it.
> 
> This wouldn't matter much if the sentence read_ When considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should... : _I'd definitely prefer_When considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should...
> 
> _But here we have the importantly different_While considering what jobs are suitable for you...  _The concessive overtones of that _while_ remove the grammatical need for a reflexive pronoun, in my view.
> 
> 2.  I cannot see an issue of ambiguity here, so I don't see that the reflexive is required.



I think I've figured out why one would avoid the reflexive. It's because, in the original sentence, the word "jobs" became a subject in the subordinate clause (since we have the phrase "jobs are suitable..." and thus, they are not acting on "yourself" but rather on "you").

I believe that that is where your (and my) doubts about the prescriptive grammar can be put to rest, Chris Wong. I have now come full circle and reached the conclusion that "yourself" is *patently wrong* for this very reason.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

estoy_lerniendo said:


> I think I've figured out why one would avoid the reflexive. It's because, in the original sentence, the word "jobs" became a subject in the subordinate clause (since we have the phrase "jobs are suitable..." and thus, they are not acting on "yourself" but rather on "you").
> 
> I believe that that is where your (and my) doubts about the prescriptive grammar can be put to rest, Chris Wong. I have now come full circle and reached the conclusion that "yourself" is *patently wrong* for this very reason.


I'm afraid, EL, I think this view is as incorrect as your previous one.

_Yourself_ is possible, but not mandatory, for the reasons I have put forward.  It alters the stress in the sentence, and would be suitable in cases where you'd just been considering jobs for other people.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> 1. The subject of the sentence, _you_, has not yet appeared, so _yourself_ would be anticipating it.



There are still cases like this where "yourself" is required.

_While/When going to the grocery store to buy food for yourself, you must think about how much it will cost._




Thomas Tompion said:


> This wouldn't matter much if the sentence read_ When considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should... : _I'd definitely prefer_ When considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should...
> _



_When considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should... _would be grammatically disallowed because jobs are not suitable for yourself. *Jobs are not something for yourself. They are something for you.* (in other words, "jobs" became its own subject in a subordinate clause here)


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm afraid, EL, I think this view is as incorrect as your previous one.
> 
> _Yourself_ is possible, but not mandatory, for the reasons I have put forward.  It alters the stress in the sentence, and would be suitable in cases where you'd just been considering jobs for other people.



I'm not talking in "practical" terms. I'm talking in strictly grammatical terms.

You make good points about the "real-life" practical use of _yourself _for this situation.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

estoy_lerniendo said:


> I'm not talking in "practical" terms. I'm talking in strictly grammatical terms.


I'm sorry but I don't think this means anything.  You write as though 'strict grammar' is remote from idiomatic usage, and you produce no justification for your statements.

I don't think this unsupported and contentious talk of 'strict grammar' is helping Chris find the answer to his question. 

We should be talking about whether he'd be better starting the sentence with 'when' rather than 'while'.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm sorry but I don't think this means anything.  You write as though 'strict grammar' is remote from idiomatic usage, and you produce no justification for your statements.
> 
> I don't think this unsupported and contentious talk of 'strict grammar' is helping Chris find the answer to his question.
> 
> We should be talking about whether he'd be better starting the sentence with 'when' rather than 'while'.



I disagree, and I think that Chris probably does the follow the "strict grammar" because he is the one who thought that it dealt with "an implicit subject in a subordinate clause" as he agreed with that statement earlier.

I think that you do not or do not seek to understand my comment about "jobs being something for yourself" as a grammatical falsehood, despite the fact that its usage can have purpose in real life, as you pointed out very well.

Following a defined standard and having situational practicality are two different things.

In fact, the definition of "yourself" helps explain what I am trying to say up there.


(As a side example, if I say _"You is good" _to a friend with a smile on my face, I might do so in order to show my allegiance to him because he speaks this way, but many people would say that such a comment violates standard grammar, hence, the difference between standard grammar and practicality.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

chris wong said:


> I do not know which one is correct.
> 
> 1. While considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should...
> 2. While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ...
> 
> Thanks


Hello Chris,

I think you should consider changing your first word to 'when'.  I suspect that would alter the sentence to what you wish it to mean.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

chris wong said:


> I do not know which one is correct.
> 
> 1. While considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should...
> 2. While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ...
> 
> Thanks



#2 does not make sense grammatically because when we highlight the phrase "jobs are suitable for yourself," we see that "jobs" is a subject right here and cannot logically act on "yourself" in this position because the immediate subject of "yourself" would have to be "you" instead of "jobs."

However, note that both sentences can have useful meanings to speakers in daily situations.


----------



## se16teddy

We use the a* reflexive* pronoun when it refers to the same person or thing as the subject of* its* verb. The subject of the *main verb of the sentence *is irrelevant. 

I love a man who loves me.  subject of "loves" is "who" and is not the same person as "me". 
I love a man who loves myself.  subject of "loves" is "who" and is not the same person as "myself".
I love a man who loves himself.  subject of "loves" is "who" and is the same person as "himself".
I love a man who loves him.  subject of "loves" is "who" and is the same person as "him".
Consider what job is suitable for you.  subject of "is" is "what job" and is not the same person as "you".
Consider what job is suitable for yourself.  subject of "is" is "what job" and is not the same person as "yourself".

 Of course,_ yourself_ can function as an *emphatic* pronoun rather than as a *reflexive* pronoun, and some people might say _While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ... _on this basis.  However, I think that some prescriptive grammarians insist that emphatic pronouns must be accompanied by a noun or (non-reflexive) pronouns. 
_I must consider what job is suitable for Fred himself.  Consider what job is suitable for you yourself. 
Consider what job is suitable for yourself. _


----------



## Thomas Tompion

estoy_lerniendo said:


> #2 does not make sense grammatically because when we highlight the phrase "jobs are suitable for yourself," we see that "jobs" is a subject right here and cannot logically act on "yourself" in this position.


Try turning it round: *You should, when considering what jobs are suitable for yourself,...*  I'd say this was obviously both idiomatic and grammatical.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

se16teddy said:


> We use the a reflexive pronoun when the pronoun refers to the same referent as the subject of* its* verb. The subject of the *main verb of the sentence *is irrelevant.
> 
> I love a man who loves me.  subject of "loves" is not "me".
> I love a man who loves myself.  subject of "loves" is not "myself".
> I love a man who loves himself.  subject of "himself" is "who".
> I love a man who loves him.  subject of "loves" is "who".
> Consider what is suitable for you.  subject of "is" is not "who".
> Consider what is suitable for yourself.  subject of "is" is not "yourself".



Kind of. You checked the right ones, but your explanations are not pointing to all of the right elements.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> Try turning it round: *You should, when considering what jobs are suitable for yourself,...*  I'd say this was obviously both idiomatic and grammatical.



If one doesn't break up the *jobs are suitable for yourself *part, then one still runs into the same grammatical (albeit probably impractical for life) restriction.

From a purely grammatical standpoint (not speaking of semantics), you can say "you are suitable for yourself" and "jobs are suitable for themselves," but not "jobs are suitable for yourself."


(A famous example of a sentence that follows grammatical rules but not semantics is: Colo(u)rless green ideas sleep furiously.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

se16teddy said:


> [...]Consider what job is suitable for yourself.  subject of "is" is "what job" and is not the same person as "yourself".
> 
> Of course, yourself can function as an *emphatic* pronoun rather than as a *reflexive* pronoun, and some people might say _While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ... _on this basis.


Thank you for this, Teddy.

I'm glad you agree that *yourself* is possible in Chris's sentence.  I think you should remove that cross from your last example.


----------



## se16teddy

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm glad you agree that *yourself* is possible in Chris's sentence.  I think you should remove that cross from your last example.


Hang on, that post took me 20 minutes to complete! And I lose my posts if I don't save them frequently.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

se16teddy said:


> However, I think that some prescriptive grammarians insist that emphatic pronouns must be accompanied by a noun or (non-reflexive) pronouns.
> _I must consider what job is suitable for Fred himself.  Consider what job is suitable for you yourself.
> Consider what job is suitable for yourself. _



Yep! Emphatic pronouns are not a "get-out-free" card. They still have to refer directly to their referent in the clause. (as in, "Jane opened the door herself.")

Emphatic pronouns don't freely replace the regular pronoun. They are only inserted when the subject to which they correspond is in the phrase.

*Hence, "jobs are suitable for yourself" is not grammatically correct *because it has nothing to do with using emphatic pronouns correctly.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

se16teddy said:


> Hang on, that post took me 20 minutes to complete! And I lose my posts if I don't save them frequently.


I'm terribly sorry.  Just leave it as it is, though I'm sure you can see why I made my suggestion.  Happy New Year!


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

An emphatic pronoun can always be removed from the sentence without altering the meaning of the sentence, so "yourself" is not an emphatic pronoun in the phrase "...jobs are suitable for yourself." because "...jobs are suitable for." would not even make sense.


----------



## se16teddy

estoy_lerniendo said:


> Emphatic pronouns don't freely replace the regular pronoun. They are only inserted when the subject to which they correspond is in the phrase.


How would you categorize these examples then? (from the OED entry for _himself_)
1835   _Journal of the Royal Geographical Society_ *5* 103 The collection of these documents..gave himself and posterity the erroneous idea that the ancient colony was situated on the east coast.
1948    P. Kavanagh _Tarry Flynn_ (1965)     ii. 42 Every evening himself and Eusebius went down the road.
 1957    H. E. Bates _Death of Huntsman_ 63                  She regarded himself, the girl, the dancing, and even the dress, with the same unmitigated calm.
 2005    D. McWilliams _Pope's Children_ (2008)     85                  A nudist island..where himself and other like-minded elderly Germans revel in getting their kits off.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

An *intensive pronoun adds emphasis to a statement; for example, "I did it myself." While English intensive pronouns (e.g. myself, yourself, himself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves) use the same form as reflexive pronouns, an intensive pronoun is different from a reflexive, because the pronoun can be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence. An intensive noun works with the antecedent, the word the pronoun replaces. For example, compare "I will do it myself", where "myself" is intensive and can be removed without changing the meaning, to "I sold myself", where "myself" fills the necessary role of direct object.

*You tell me where the original sentence contains an emphatic pronoun.


In that entry, the OED has a register of how the English language has been used by human beings in given works from given times. That has nothing to do with determining the essence of an emphatic pronoun nor with decreeing the laws of grammatical logic when they are not claiming to do so in said example sentences, but merely relaying their employment in some real world contexts.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

If you quote something, EL, it's usual to reference your quote with a link.  Don't put all your trust in Wikipedia.

You don't look at even one of the examples in Teddy's post.


----------



## se16teddy

estoy_lerniendo said:


> An *intensive pronoun adds emphasis to a statement; for example, "I did it myself." While English intensive pronouns (e.g. myself, yourself, himself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves) use the same form as reflexive pronouns, an intensive pronoun is different from a reflexive, because the pronoun can be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence. An intensive noun works with the antecedent, the word the pronoun replaces. For example, compare "I will do it myself", where "myself" is intensive and can be removed without changing the meaning, to "I sold myself", where "myself" fills the necessary role of direct object. *


While this statement may be a useful guide for learners of English as a foreign language who have to understand English sufficiently to take tests, it does not cover all the uses of _myself,_ _yourself, himself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves. _


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

I did read it. I also said that that entry did not classify what an emphatic pronoun is and whether or not grammarians find those usages appropriate but rather showed the word coming from different contexts. It was not a grammatical value judgment of an emphatic pronoun nor of the use of pronouns in sentences.


----------



## se16teddy

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm terribly sorry.


 I didn't mean to sound so prickly. And I must admit that my thinking developed as I was writing my post #20 (without reference to subsequent posts).


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

In fact, oxforddictionaries.com contains no explanation under pronouns for what an emphatic pronoun is, so if we go by that standard, if we can't even validate the existence of an emphatic pronoun because the great beloved oxforddictionaries.com doesn't have an entry for it under pronouns, then you can't use it as an argument for your point.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

se16teddy said:


> I didn't mean to sound so prickly. And I must admit that my thinking developed as I was writing my post #20 (without reference to subsequent posts).


You didn't sound prickly at all.  I should have put four laughing smileys at the start of my post, because you made me laugh.  I just don't use those things much.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

No one has yet explained how the original sentence with "yourself" can be grammatically justified. That's kind of what I'm curious about.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

>> No one has yet explained how the original sentence with "yourself" can  be grammatically justified. That's kind of what I'm curious about.

How about this? Would you concede that it's possible to consider things for oneself?


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> >> No one has yet explained how the original sentence with "yourself" can  be grammatically justified. That's kind of what I'm curious about.
> 
> How about this? Would you concede that it's possible to consider things for oneself?




I consider things for myself. 
I consider that all things exist for myself.  (meaning "exist to fulfill me")


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

So presumably, for you, 'I consider things for myself' means that that function does not get delegated to others?


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

*http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/11/some-reflections-on-reflexives/: a blog written by Catherine Soanes, co-editor of Oxford Dictionary
*
You may read this blog if you wish in order to see the author's views about the correct and incorrect uses of pronouns.  In doing so, I believe that it can be seen that the phrase "what jobs are suitable for yourself" does not contain an emphatic pronoun and also that the author would not find such a phrase to be grammatically correct given the explanations and the like examples that she provides.

(At one point in the blog, the author states that in Irish English "using a reflexive pronoun instead of a subjective or objective pronoun [...] is regarded as grammatical" as an exception to standard current English. She also states "It’s interesting that the historical evidence in the Oxford English Dictionary shows that this usage wasn’t considered ungrammatical in British English in the past, either (how times change!)." This final parenthetical remark, after attributing the grammaticality of said usage to the past, seems to emphasize that the author no longer finds such usage to be grammatical in British English.)


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Sorry. I'm not sure what you really mean by "I consider things for myself." (I suppose, "for myself" could possibly mean something like "independently.")

"I consider things for me." wouldn't be grammatically correct because the only subject in the whole sentence is "I," so "myself" would be the correct predicate pronoun.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

chris wong said:


> I do not know which one is correct.
> 
> 1. While considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should...
> 2. While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ...
> 
> Thanks


Hello Chris,

 Just to show how some great writers have used the _yourself_ form in cases like this:

_"Leave that to Venator," replied the favorite, "and you must find some amusing  disguise and procure masks for him and for me and, if you like, for yourself too._  The Emperor by Georg Ebers: Chapter 22.
_ 
'I have put some of the stock of money I have left into your pocket; take places for yourself and your maid in the stage-coach, and go for London;_ Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe: Chapter 31.
_
Can I turn it to no good account for yourself, Mr. Carton?" He shook his head. "To  none. No, Miss Manette, to none._ A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens: Chapter 19.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hello Chris,
> 
> Just to show how some great writers have used the _yourself_ form in cases like this:
> 
> _"Leave that to Venator," replied the favorite, "and you must find some amusing  disguise and procure masks for him and for me and, if you like, for yourself too._  The Emperor by Georg Ebers: Chapter 22.
> _
> 'I have put some of the stock of money I have left into your pocket; take places for yourself and your maid in the stage-coach, and go for London;_ Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe: Chapter 31.
> _
> Can I turn it to no good account for yourself, Mr. Carton?" He shook his head. "To  none. No, Miss Manette, to none._ A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens: Chapter 19.



Historically and culturally valuable? Yes. (which is a very valid and useful point to remember)

Regarded as grammatical in standard current English? No. (which may or may not matter to someone at all for the purposes of "real-life" use)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

estoy_lerniendo said:


> Historically and culturally valuable? Yes. (which is a very valid and useful point to remember)
> 
> Regarded as grammatical in standard current English? No. (which may or may not matter to someone at all for the purposes of "real-life" use)


Still no analysis of a grammatical issue.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> Still no analysis of a grammatical issue.



For now, I will just refer back to the blog by Catherine Soanes (and to Post #41 in relation to it).  Make of it what you will, I suppose.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

estoy_lerniendo said:


> For now, I will just refer back to the blog by Catherine Soares.  Make of it what you will, I suppose.


She doesn't discuss the question of the use of such pronouns after prepositions, so it's largely irrelevant.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> She doesn't discuss the question of the use of such pronouns after prepositions, so it's largely irrelevant.



From the blog:

_[...] reflexive used as the object of a preposition [...]_

_Claire didn’t win but it was no mean achievement to reach the final and for this we send our congratulations *to herself* and her family._ [Irish English]
_congratulations* to* *her* and her family_. [British English]

Using a reflexive pronoun in this situation is regarded as grammatical in current Irish English but not in current British English.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

estoy_lerniendo said:


> From the blog:
> 
> _Claire didn’t win but it was no mean achievement to reach the final and for this we send our congratulations *to herself* and her family._ [Irish English]
> _congratulations* to* *her* and her family_. [British English]
> 
> Using a reflexive pronoun in this situation is regarded as grammatical in current Irish English but not in current British English.


You make my point for me.  This is talking about Irish English.  She doesn't discuss the question in British English, and the example isn't close to the one we are considering.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> She doesn't discuss the question in British English, and the example isn't close to the one we are considering.



She does. That's why the two are juxtaposed in her blog with the correct usage for each dialect, which she explains elsewhere in further detail.

The example contains the same grammatical elements in question, which the author describes in further detail in her blog, and there is even an example with one of these objective and reflexive pronouns appearing after a preposition. 

It appears that if I say "Bob is tall," you will just argue that "John is tall" is grammatically unrelated for reason X.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I couldn't find it and you don't quote it or analyse it, so I'm still sceptical.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> I couldn't find it and you don't quote it or analyse it, so I'm still sceptical.



If the link from Post #41 does not work, then on Google you can search: _Catherine Soanes reflections on reflexives._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Let's be clear: I think Ms Soames does quite a good job here, and I approve of her attack on the promiscuous use of reflexives, though I don't like her smartiboots tone.

I agree with her that the Irish example she quotes is not idiomatic these days in British English.

My point is that while she suggests that her coverage of the issue is comprehensive, it is anything but that.  She doesn't confront the issue of the use of these pronouns after prepositions.

  It would be good to get back to the OP.  What do you find so strange about the second sentence, 





> 2. While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ...


particularly if we had just been considering jobs for other people?

I'm surprised you aren't referring at all to your own linguistic sense here, EL.  Initially, when maybe you were applying your own sense of language, you accepted it.  Do you think it's out of the question that your first reaction was sound?


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> My point is that while she suggests that her coverage of the issue is comprehensive, it is anything but that. She doesn't confront the issue of the use of these pronouns after prepositions.



She does make reference to _"reflexive used as the object of a preposition," _which is further elaborated in Post #48.



Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm surprised you aren't referring at all to your own linguistic sense here, EL. Initially, when maybe you were applying your own sense of language, you accepted it. Do you think it's out of the question that your first reaction was sound?



I was using that source to try to back up what I thought. I believe that my first take was totally misguided because I initially failed to realize that "jobs" is also a subject of a subordinate clause in that sentence, namely, the subject of the inner-phrase to which "yourself" belongs, which made me realize that "you" was correct (to me) and that "yourself" was not.

In terms of usage, like you've said, I think it that using "yourself" in that sentence is perfectly normal in everyday situations and has good uses in daily language, so the whole deal about grammaticality is really just an afterthought compared to the use of language as an effective means of communication. It's just a matter of the mathematical-minded and, in some cases, probably unnecessary grammatical details to which one adheres vs. what I just stated, the use of language as an effective means of communication.

And even regarding grammaticality governed by the "linguistic rulers," those rules are always changing and not even do they agree with each other on a lot of stuff, so...


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_...you can do one of those things. And it's a way to squeeze out a little bit of time for yourself even in a very full-plate life.
_
How about this very modern example from the COCA (the AE corpus)?  Is this ungrammatical because the subject is _it_?  I don't think you'd advocate changing it to _And it's a way to squeeze out a little bit of time for you even in a very full-plate life,_ would you?

I think the issue is quite complicated and interesting.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Thomas Tompion said:


> _...you can do one of those things. And it's a way to squeeze out a little bit of time for yourself even in a very full-plate life.
> _
> How about this very modern example from the COCA (the AE corpus)?  Is this ungrammatical because the subject is _it_?  I don't think you'd advocate changing it to _And it's a way to squeeze out a little bit of time for you even in a very full-plate life,_ would you?
> 
> I think the issue is quite complicated and interesting.



It is an interesting issue.

You bring up yet another element because in the sentence _And it's a way to squeeze out a little bit of time for you even in a very full-plate life._ it's not clear who is meant to do the figurative "squeezing" here (since sometimes in English we have implicit subjects, e.g., "it's a way for you to squeeze" / "it's a way that you can squeeze"), which would then warrant the use of "yourself." If one deems that in the sentence _And it's a way to squeeze out a little bit of time for you even in a very full-plate life. _the idea of "squeezing" is being done by some impersonal agent, then using "you" would be grammatical to me.

In terms of the original sentences, I don't see where one can make this same implicit-subject argument because the phrase "jobs are suitable for you(rself)" explicitly appears.

Also, in the sense that I'm using "grammaticality," I don't equate it entirely to "naturalness." Or, it's not entirely governed by my immediate impression of "naturalness." I'm viewing language through its everyday use on one side and through the definitions of grammaticality that we give on the other side, even if I don't care about said definitions when I'm 'on the streets.' For example, 'on the streets,' I would say "yourself" in the example sentence you give here and go on about my day, but I can still have a "formal grammatical belief system" even if I often ignore it during my day.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

> _...you can do one of those things. And it's a way to squeeze out a little bit of time for yourself even in a very full-plate life._I don't think it would be idiomatic with 'you', so I wouldn't be prepared to sanction such a change.



The impersonal subject might be better met with the impersonal 'oneself', but then we may not be dealing with an impersonal 'yourself' here.

The point is that the -self form points out that you are doing something for yourself, rather than having it done for you, or doing it for someone else.  This is an important contribution to meaning which must be retained.  This is why it would be wrong, in my view, to change _yourself_ to _you_, here.  The change would not only sound absurd, it would bring about an unfortunate shift in meaning.

_...you can do one of those things. And it's a way to squeeze  out a little bit of time for you even in a very full-plate life._I don't think it would be idiomatic with 'you', so I wouldn't be prepared to sanction such a change.


----------



## se16teddy

I am coming to the conclusion that "reflexive pronoun" is a rather rubbish name for myself etc. They are pronouns that are used for various emphatic purposes, including (more often than not) to emphasize that they are referring to the subject of their verb. 

_Now I lay me down to sleep,
 I pray the Lord my soul to keep;
 if I die before I wake,
 I pray for Lord my soul to take.
http://www.worldprayers.org/archive/prayers/invocations/now_i_lay_me_down_to_sleep.html

The storm that breaks the sapling aik
But scarcely bends the aged tree - 
When will I lay me down to sleep? 
When will I lay me down to dee? 
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...A194#v=onepage&q="lay me down to dee"&f=false_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

For what it's worth I've never thought of you as a reflexive pronoun, Teddy.


----------



## EStjarn

chris wong said:


> I do not know which one is correct.



It appears that the corpus-based _Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English_ (2002) would agree with estoy_lerniendo that the correct form here is 'you':


> *4.13.1 Reflexive pronouns in their reflexive use*
> [...]
> 1 _Most consultants are just selling themselves._ (CONV)
> [...]
> The reflexive pronoun has to be used if co-reference is intended. For example, if _them_ were used instead of _themselves_ in 1 (_consultants are selling them_) the meaning would be different: that consultants were selling some other products.
> 
> Reflexive pronouns are used like this only when there is a co-referential subject in the same clause. Notice, in 3, that _his big brother_, not _he_, is the subject of the non-finite clause, and therefore _him_ is used instead of _himself:_
> 
> 3 _He wanted his big brother to treat him as an equal._ (FICT)



I have yet to see a contemporary grammar reference that suggests both forms would be equally acceptable.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

> _...you can do one of those things. And it's a way to squeeze out a  little bit of time for yourself even in a very full-plate life.
> _


So you would change _yourself _to _you_ here, would you, EStjarn?  

We aren't talking about a reflexive use.

I wish you'd quote the relevant bit from the Longman grammar.  You don't quote anything which suggests that_ you_ would be  an acceptable substitution.


----------



## EStjarn

Thomas Tompion said:


> I wish you'd quote the relevant bit from the Longman grammar. You don't quote anything which suggests that_ you_ would be unacceptable.



In reference to chris's sentence snippet, I thought I was quoting the relevant part in "Reflexive pronouns are used like this *only* when there is a co-referential subject in the same clause."

The subject in the clause is 'what jobs'. Is 'yourself' a co-reference of 'what jobs'? It is not. Thus, Longman would seem to say that 'yourself' is not the correct choice of pronoun in the topic snippet.



Thomas Tompion said:


> We aren't talking about a reflexive use.



And where was it established that _we_ are not? And if we are not, exactly what use of 'yourself' are we talking about then?


Thomas Tompion said:


> So you would change _yourself_ to _you_ here, would you, EStjarn?


Let's put your sentence in a simpler form:
_
Doing one of those things is a way to squeeze out a little bit of time for yourself even in a very full-plate life.
_
I would say that 'you' is the implied agent of 'doing one of those things', or 'yourself' would not make sense.

Because of the mismatch between the subjects - 'what jobs' (a simple noun phrase) and 'doing one of those things' (a participial phrase) - I don't feel the analogy is convincing.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

EStjarn said:


> [...]And where was it established that _we_ are not?



In the original sentence, _While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ..., _one could certainly argue that we are looking at a reflexive use.  If you think that Longman is saying that we can't use the reflexive pronoun because we aren't in the same clause, I think the book is oversimplifying, in order to attack the very common over/mis-use of this pronoun, which I too deplore.

  There's a difference between _While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ...,_ and_ While considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should ...:_ the difference is that the version with _yourself_ makes explicit that it's referring to the subject of the sentence.  The point is that in English you might easily be using an impersonal _you_ meaning _one,_ ie. nobody in particular.  

The version with _yourself_ obviates the need for the intensive which otherwise might be regarded as necessary - _While considering what jobs are suitable for you, yourself, you should ...

_Many writers would prefer the version with _yourself,_ on grounds of economy and clarity.





EStjarn said:


> And if we are not, exactly what use of 'yourself' are we talking about then?


We were referring to the intensive  use as illustrated by many of the preceding posts.

We mustn't forget the point made here: This form is also sometimes used optionally in a non-reflexive function,  as a substitute for a non-reflexive pronoun (for example, _For someone like myself, . . ._, _This article was written by Professor Smith and myself_),though some style guides recommend avoiding such use.The same reflexive forms also are used as intensive pronouns (for example, _She made the dress herself_).

So to declare that the version with the reflexive is ungrammatical and incorrect in English is, in my view, to present a language which not many natives would recognise, and also to sidestep a possibly interesting argument about style with an unjustified absolute.


----------



## EStjarn

Thomas Tompion said:


> If you think that Longman is saying that we can't use the reflexive pronoun because we aren't in the same clause, I think the book is oversimplifying, in order to attack the very common over/mis-use of this pronoun, which I too deplore.



It may be true that the book is oversimplifying the matter. Then again, it may not. To oversimplify is not the same as to simplify. In the absence of a more comprehensive source, I suggest we take its advice seriously.


Thomas Tompion said:


> There's a difference between _While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ...,_ and_ While considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should ...:_ the difference is that the version with _yourself_, makes explicit that it's referring to the subject of the sentence.



Such explicitness would seem exaggerated since the subject of the following main clause will have to be the implicit subject of the participial clause, or else we would have a dangling participle.


Thomas Tompion said:


> The version with _yourself_ obviates the need for the intensive which otherwise might be regarded as necessary - _While considering what jobs are suitable for you, yourself, you should ..._
> 
> Many writers would prefer the version with _yourself,_ on grounds of economy and clarity.


I understand why you say 'on the grounds of economy' here, but I don't think 'on the grounds of clarity' is well-founded, as suggested by the existence of this very discussion.


Thomas Tompion said:


> We were referring to the intensive use as illustrated by many of the preceding posts.


I'm puzzled by your use of 'we' here, Thomas. Clearly estoy_lerniendo is arguing that 'yourself' would be a misplaced reflexive pronoun. Do you see anywhere that he has changed his mind about this?

Even if 'yourself' is used as an intensifier in the topic sentence, it appears that Longman would continue to argue against its correctness, although it's not entirely clear:


> *4.13.2 Emphatic use of reflexive pronouns*
> 
> A reflexive pronoun can be used for emphasis, immediately following the emphasized noun phrase:
> 
> 1 _Unfortunately I myself did not have this chance._ (FICT) [...]
> 
> With subject noun phrases, as in 1, there is another variant of this construction. The reflexive pronoun is separated from its noun phrase, and placed later in the clause. This word order is preferred in conversation:
> 
> 3 _I'll do the preparation myself._ (CONV)


Is it perhaps this latter variant you are trying to convice us we're dealing with here?





Thomas Tompion said:


> So to declare that the version with the reflexive is ungrammatical and incorrect in English is, in my view, to present a language which not many natives would recognise...



The implication of this is that you're suggesting I am doing those things, or it would be a meaningless statement. But I am not presenting my own view, but the supposed view of _Longman Student Grammar_, which is written by native English speakers, and which takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to language, meaning it strives to reflect usage.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Well, I wish you joy of Longman's Student Grammar.  It's probably very useful to students who are starting out on the language.


----------



## Loob

chris wong said:


> I do not know which one is correct.
> 
> 1. While considering what jobs are suitable for you, you should...
> 2. While considering what jobs are suitable for yourself, you should ...
> 
> Thanks


I can't believe this thread has 64 posts!
"Suitable for you" is, to my mind, the normal, unemphatic way of saying this.

"Suitable for yourself" is emphatic: _yourself_ as distinct from some other person.

(It's not reflexive.)


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

I respect people's right to deem that one usage or another is or should be considered grammatical._

Grammatically correct _and _semantically __useful for foreigners and natives alike in their daily lives_ are not the same. 

Grammar and semantics are both valuable fields. 

There are cases in which an utterance that is deemed to be grammatically correct is semantically *in*adequate, whereas a grammatically *in*correct alternative may indeed be semantically adequate for that situation.

I could easily find myself telling someone "figure out what jobs are suitable for yourself" and then I would come to the conclusion that this utterance was both semantically optimal and grammatically wrong to me at the same time.


----------



## EStjarn

When native members cannot agree which one of a number of choices that represents so called correct English, I think it is necessary to look further into what grammarians have said about the particular subject in question. Thomas Tompion has suggested that the Longman student grammar was oversimplifying the matter. I hope the following reference will not come across as equally summary to him.

_A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_ (1985) by Randolph Quirk et al. was, in a 1991 study on English modern reference grammars, called "the greatest of contemporary grammars."

I believe it has something to add to this discussion.

With reference to the reflexive pronoun, the grammar states that it has two distinct uses, which are called basic use and emphatic use, respectively. In the basic use, the reflexive pronoun functions as either object or complement and has the subject of its clause as its antecedent; in the emphatic use, the pronoun is in an appositional relation to its antecedent.

In the case of the basic use, the grammar distinguishes between an obligatory use and an optional use of basic reflexive pronouns. Since what we're dealing with in the topic sentence cannot be an instance of obligatory use (or this thread would not have been this long), I will cut directly to the optional use. It refers to the cases in which the basic reflexive pronoun may acceptably be replaced by the ordinary objective pronoun. The reflexive pronoun would, in those cases, be chosen to supply special emphasis..
[In the 'semi-emphatic' use, the reflexive pronoun] does not have the subject as its antecedent, but is commonly used as a more emphatic equivalent of the 1st and 2nd person personal pronouns. [...] The reflexive pronoun in these contexts can be reasonably called 'semi-emphatic' because it can be regarded as an abbreviated version of a sequence of the personal pronoun followed by the emphatic reflexive pronoun (_you yourself_, _him himself_, etc.). Thus there are three possibilities in: _Anyone but you/yourself/you yourself would have noticed the change._ The latter repetition of the pronoun (_you yourself_) is avoided, however, outside the subject position.
.​Among the examples given of the semi-emphatic use are:.
_For someone like me/myself, this is a big surprise.
Except for us/ourselves, the whole village was asleep.
Sandra's sister is even taller than her(self).
_.​So, if I am to take the above as a guide, I think I will have to concede that Thomas and several other contributors above are correct in their assertion that either pronoun is fine in the topic sentence.


----------



## velisarius

Loob said:


> I can't believe this thread has 64 posts!
> "Suitable for you" is, to my mind, the normal, unemphatic way of saying this.
> 
> "Suitable for yourself" is emphatic: _yourself_ as distinct from some other person.
> 
> (It's not reflexive.)



Agreeing with the above, I'd just like to add that chris w. should not be deterred by the repetition of "you, you" in sentence 1. It is what I would choose too.
For me, sentence 2 is emphatic; for yourself, not for anyone else--or just a slightly Irish-flavoured alternative to the first sentence.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

velisarius said:


> [...]I'd just like to add that chris w. should not be deterred by the repetition of "you, you" in sentence 1. It is what I would choose too.
> For me, sentence 2 is emphatic; for yourself, not for anyone else--or just a slightly Irish-flavoured alternative to the first sentence.


Different rhythms are possible, of course:

*suitable for you* (least emphatic - dactyl + trochee), *suitable for you* (more emphatic - dactyl + iamb), *suitable for yourself* (most emphatic - dactyl + anapaest), and that might make a difference to the choice, in light of the flow of the sentence, and any parallelisms established in the writing.


----------

