Reflexive pronouns

Why is the standard form of the reflexive pronoun "himself" and not "hisself"?

The only reason you think it should be "hisself" is because the equivalent feminine form is "herself"--but you have to remember that in this instance "her" does *not* come from the possessive "her", but rather the objective her (e.g. I gave the book to her. so therefore: I have the book to him--rather than I gave the book to his.)

If you want the etymology go to: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=himself&x=0&y=0

User

How can that be right? By that logic, it would also be 'youself' and 'usselves', wouldn't it?

Speakers of some vernacular American dialects, particularly in the South, may use the possessive reflexive form hisself instead of himself (as in He cut hisself shaving) and theirselves or theirself for themselves (as in They found theirselves alone). These forms reflect the tendency of speakers of vernacular dialects to regularize irregular patterns found in the corresponding standard variety. In Standard English, the pattern of reflexive pronoun forms shows slightly irregular patterning; all forms but two are composed of the possessive form of the pronoun and -self or -selves, as in myself or ourselves. The exceptions are himself and themselves, which are formed by attaching the suffix -self/-selves to the object forms of he and they rather than their possessive forms. Speakers who use hisself and theirselves are smoothing out the pattern's inconsistencies by applying the same rule to all forms in the set. ·A further regularization is the use of -self regardless of number, yielding the forms ourself and theirself. Using a singular form in a plural context may seem imprecise, but the plural meaning of ourself and theirself is made clear by the presence of the plural forms our- and their-. Hisself and theirselves have origins in British English and are still prevalent today in vernacular speech in England.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hisself

<These forms reflect the tendency of speakers of vernacular dialects to regularize irregular patterns found in the corresponding standard variety. >

Actually, the forms developed separate to the Standard form.

Surely regularisation makes learning and retaining easier. Why on earth hasn't the Standard English dialect followed the lead of vernacular dialects?

Because people who say "hisself" sound low-class and stupid to people who speak more standard English.

It's just that for whatever reason, they happened to settle on a 3rd-person singular masculine reflexive that was based on the objective "him" rather than the possessive "his".

The other 3rd-person singular reflexives ("herself", "itself") are ambiguous as to whether they were based on the objective or the possessive forms, and the 3rd-person plural "themselves" is based on the objective form. All the other reflexives ("myself", "thyself", "ourselves", "your[self/selves]") are based on the possessive form.

Why? Not a clue.

<<Surely regularisation makes learning and retaining easier. Why on earth hasn't the Standard English dialect followed the lead of vernacular dialects?>>

Um...maybe for the same reason that there are numerous other irregularities in English and all other languages? That's just the way natural human languages evolve.

Because people who say "it's me" sound low-class and stupid to people who speak more standard English (it is I)



I concur.

"A further regularization is the use of -self regardless of number, yielding the forms ourself and theirself. Using a singular form in a plural context may seem imprecise, but the plural meaning of ourself and theirself is made clear by the presence of the plural forms our- and their-."

That doesn't have the feel of a regularisation to me unless you go right ahead an regularise all pluralisation out of existance (e.g. "one appple, two apple, three apple, ...").

I'd also argue that the plural meaning is not necessarily made clear in the case of "theirself" (or "themself", for that matter) because of the use of singular "they".

So there's a twist for you. In "standard" English there is no "themself" (nor "theirself", for that matter) but wouldn't you think it'd make sense to use it as the reflexive form of singular "they"?

<Because people who say "it's me" sound low-class and stupid to people who speak more standard English (it is I)>

What's wrong with "it's me"?

The predicate of a clause whose verb is "to be" is in the nominative case. Therefore, "I" must be used.

<Lolly Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:28 am GMT
Because people who say "it's me" sound low-class and stupid to people who speak more standard English (it is I) >

<j :What's wrong with "it's me"?>

<Guest "I" must be used.>
---------------
So, while knocking at the door and hearing the question "Who is it", I should say "It's I" instead of "it's me", shouldn't I?
Are you sure? It sounds odd to me.

<Because people who say "hisself" sound low-class and stupid to people who speak more standard English. >

Is it so bad to be lower-class?

<<Because people who say "it's me" sound low-class and stupid to people who speak more standard English (it is I)>>

The objective forms "It is me/him/etc" are by far more common in vernacular speech, to the extent that the subjective forms "It is I/he/etc" sound stilted or archaic. I'd wager that very few people, when knocking on a friend's door, would say, "Hey, it's I!", or "Hey, it's we!"