{"id":436004,"date":"2018-05-19T11:17:10","date_gmt":"2018-05-19T11:17:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essaypaper.org\/i-am-writing-on-behalf-of-myself-vs-me\/"},"modified":"2018-10-24T08:57:40","modified_gmt":"2018-10-24T08:57:40","slug":"i-am-writing-on-behalf-of-myself-vs-me","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/i-am-writing-on-behalf-of-myself-vs-me\/","title":{"rendered":"I am writing on behalf of myself vs me"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t\t\t \"Order\n\t\t<\/div>\n
\"I<\/div>\n

One of my high school students came up with an excellent question while writing an in-depth literary essay. This is her example: \u201cWhat was the evidence of her [Mayella\u2019s] offense?\u201d Should the student leave the original pronoun and include the bracketed name? Or does the bracketed name in a sense replace the need for the pronoun?<\/p>\n

Thank you for your timely response.<\/p>\n

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE<\/b><\/p>\n

Anchorage, Alaska Fri, Jan 19, 2001<\/b><\/p>\n

The Chicago Manual of Style<\/i> seems to suggest that your editorial interpolation, enclosed within brackets, should not change the rest of your sentence. However, the Chicago book then adds, \u201cWhen an interpolated word takes the place of a word in the original, ellipsis points are omitted.\u201d I think, though, that they\u2019re referring to instances when the interpolation replaces a foreign word or English translation that doesn\u2019t convey the exact meaning. In other words, I think your student should keep her<\/i> in the sentence you give us.<\/p>\n

Authority: Chicago Manual of Style<\/i> 14th ed. U of Chicago P: Chicago. 1993. p. 377.<\/p>\n

I remember in high school English that we were told not to use the phrase \u201cmore quickly.\u201d Now I hear it everyday and read it all the time. I have talked with some English teacher friends of mine and they tell me I am right. Which is correct \u201cmore quickly\u201d or \u201cquicker\u201d?<\/p>\n

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE<\/b><\/p>\n

Columbus, Ohio Sun, Jan 21, 2001<\/b><\/p>\n

I have to admit that\u2019s a new one for me. If a basketball player can move quickly, can\u2019t she move more quickly than another player? Yes, that means she\u2019s quicker. but I don\u2019t see why \u201cmore quickly\u201d can\u2019t function as a useful comparative adverb. I\u2019ll leave an e-mail icon here in case someone else cares to contribute a note on this. (I can\u2019t find anything in my books on English usage, but I don\u2019t have the Oxford English Dictionary<\/i> .)<\/p>\n

\"Low<\/div>\n
\"I<\/div>\n

This is probably as arcane as it comes, but so be it. I am a lawyer who drafts estate plans. We have an industry-common phrase we use when naming\/appointing more than one person to serve as a trustee or executor. The phrase (and my question) looks like this: \u201cI hereby appoint X and Y, or such of them as is\/are. willing and able to serve, as my executor. \u201d My question has to do with the is\/are issue. Most of my peers and superiors have adopted the habit of writing \u201csuch of them as are able. \u201c. My ear \u2014 and my knowledge of the treatment of indefinite pronouns generally \u2014 leads me to believe it would be more correct to say \u201csuch of them as is able. \u201c. But I\u2019d like some kind of documentation or other support before I go to the mat on this one.<\/p>\n

If you happen to have any ideas of a more graceful phrasing to use, I would welcome those, too!<\/p>\n

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE<\/b><\/p>\n

Minneapolis, Minnesota Sun, Jan 21, 2001<\/b><\/p>\n

I wouldn\u2019t go to the mat in any case on legal language. As I understand it, you would appoint two people, but if only one of them is willing, you\u2019d be happy with that. If that\u2019s a true translation, we might have written \u201cwhichever of them is willing. \u201d because the \u201cwhichever\u201d is clearly singular. But probably the phrase \u201csuch of them\u201d comes about because it\u2019s useful, say, if you would appoint four or five, and two or three might be able to serve. Then the singular \u201cwhichever\u201d would be inappropriate.\n<\/p>\n

\"I<\/div>\n

Thus the \u201csuch of them as are able.\u201d<\/p>\n

I have a feeling, though, that the collective \u201csuch of them\u201d has taken on a life of its own in legal language and will always take a plural verb. If I were you, I\u2019d go with the flow and use the plural. As far as a more graceful phrasing is concerned, I suppose you could try \u201cwhichever of them\u201d when you\u2019re referring to a singular subject (one of two or one of however how many); otherwise, you\u2019ll probably have to have a separate sentence: \u201cIf only one of these is able and willing to serve. \u201c<\/p>\n

What is the plural of Major General? Is it Major Generals or Majors General? Does the same answer apply to Lord Chancellor and Lord Lieutenant?<\/p>\n

Look forward to hearing from you.<\/p>\n

Blue Bell, Pennsylvania Tue, Jan 23, 2001<\/b><\/p>\n

Although we often say that someone is \u201cwell liked,\u201d it\u2019s probably not a good idea to modify how you like someone with an adverb; it suggests, in fact, that you\u2019re doing a good job of liking this person. Another idiomatic expression \u2014 I like him a lot \u2014 (or a simple, \u201cI like him very much\u201d) would be an improvement.<\/p>\n

When using the phrase \u201con behalf of\u201d is it proper to say: \u201cOn behalf of Sue, Jane and myself, I sincerely thank you for your continued support.\u201d or should the \u201cmyself\u201d be left out?<\/p>\n

I seems to me that using the \u201cmyself\u201d is redundant since \u201cI\u201d am saying it, but I hear and see the phrase used fairly often.<\/p>\n

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE<\/b><\/p>\n

St. Petersburg, Florida Wed, Jan 24, 2001<\/b><\/p>\n

I agree that it sounds kind of silly. Technically, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s wrong. One does speak, after all, on behalf of one\u2019s self. If you throw in Sue and Jane, that\u2019s all right, too. But I think you\u2019re right: leave \u201cmyself\u201d out of it: \u201cOn behalf of Sue and Jane, I sincerely thank you for your continued support\u201d says exactly what you mean.<\/p>\n

But Gerald Smyth of Ushiku City, Japan, writes.
It seems to me that if one speaks on behalf of someone, one speaks for that person and that person only. So \u2018On behalf of Sue and Jane, I sincerely thank you\u2019 (1) would not include the speaker\u2019s thanks. He speaks in the interest of, or as a representative of, Sue and Jane. If we include \u2018myself\u2019, we understand \u2018On behalf of myself I sincerely thank you\u2019, which as you say is technically correct but sounds silly \u2014 though it may sound better if phrased \u2018On my own behalf I sincerely thank you\u2019 (2). Combining (1) and (2), we get, effectively, \u2018On behalf of Sue and Jane, and on my own behalf too, I sincerely thank you\u2019. I think that would make me want to rephrase the sentence without using that construction, for example by writing \u2018Sue, Jane and I sincerely thank you\u2019, or \u2018Sue and Jane join me in sincerely thanking you\u2019.<\/p>\n

In the following sentence: Augie took him and her fishing. The pronouns are direct objects. What part of speech is \u201cfishing\u201d? In other words, how is \u201cfishing\u201d used in this sentence. Thank you.<\/p>\n

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE<\/b><\/p>\n

Springfield, Illinois Wed, Jan 24, 2001<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cFishing\u201d in that sentence is a gerund functioning as an object complement. It modifies or completes<\/i> the objects (those pronouns) in this case and is similar to the final adjective in a sentence such as \u201cWe painted the garage purple \u201d or the final noun in a sentence such as \u201cWho died and made you king ?\u201d<\/p>\n

In your opinion, is the sentence \u201cWhat this is, is a travesty\u201d, a proper one? I\u2019m referring to the use of double \u201cis\u201d.<\/p>\n

There is a mention of this in the alt.usage.english FAQ at faqs.org\/faqs\/alt-usage-english-faq\/ that says: Double \u201cis\u201d, as in \u201cThe reason is, is that. \u201d is a recent U.S. development, much decried. According to MEU3, it was first noticed in 1971 and had spread to the U.K. by 1987. Of course, \u201cWhat this is is. \u201d is undisputedly correct. Do you agree? What about the word \u201cundisputedly\u201d?<\/p>\n

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE<\/b><\/p>\n

Unknown Thu, Jan 25, 2001<\/b><\/p>\n

Even though a comma is not grammatically necessary in \u201cWhat this is, is a travesty,\u201d most writers would use one there because the sentence becomes momentarily confusing to read without it. This happens a lot when two identical words are used back to back: \u201cLet us march in, in two\u2019s\u201d or \u201cWhatever is, is good.\u201d (The duplication of the words \u201cthat\u201d or \u201chad,\u201d however, seldom necessitates a comma.)<\/p>\n

\u201cIndisputedly\u201d means that the issue has not been argued; \u201cindisputably\u201d means that it\u2019s not capable of being argued. Since neither is the case, the correctness of the assertion is just that: an assertion.<\/p>\n

Authority for \u201cis, is\u201d question: Chicago Manual of Style<\/i> 14th ed. U of Chicago P: Chicago. 1993. p. 175.<\/p>\n

Is it correct to ask \u201caren\u2019t I\u201d If not, what can you say?<\/p>\n

Somerville, Massachusetts Fri, Jan 26, 2001<\/b><\/p>\n

In the interrogative form, as in \u201cI am beautiful, aren\u2019t I ?\u201d this construction is widely regarded as acceptable in British English, and many people will use it in the U.S. You could say, instead, \u201cAm I not?\u201d The use of a contraction for \u201cam not\u201d is complicated, especially in declarative sentences, but the substandard status of \u201cain\u2019t,\u201d which seems to be a reasonable enough contraction for \u201cam not,\u201d has never been widely regarded as acceptable \u2014 probably because too many people use it for every other contraction as well.<\/p>\n

Authority: A Grammar of Contemporary English<\/i> by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. Longman Group: London. 1978. p. 81.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re trying to identify the sentence type for the following sentence: We sat silently wishing we had more time. We believe this is a complex sentence. \u2018We sat silently\u2019 is an independent clause. We are struggling with how best to explain the remaining clause. Is \u2018wishing\u2019 a gerund that introduces an adverbial clause? Please help!<\/p>\n

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE<\/b><\/p>\n

Farmington Hill, Michigan Sat, Jan 27, 2001<\/b><\/p>\n

I think what you\u2019ve got there is a noun clause with a missing \u201cthat,\u201d and the whole thing is embedded within a participial phrase: \u201cwishing [that] we had more time.\u201d That participial phrase then modifies the subject of the sentence, \u201cwe.\u201d I\u2019m not sure this qualifies your sentence as a complex sentence, but it does contain both an independent and a dependent clause, so I guess it must. I\u2019ll leave an e-mail icon here in case someone has a different opinion or can clarify the structure.<\/p>\n

Index of Grammar Logs<\/b><\/p>\n

Guide to Grammar and Writing<\/b><\/p>\n