He himself is very much like Latin egomet lit 'I-me', an emphatic form of the first person pronoun. English doesn't have many morphological resources left, but the reflexive pronoun compounds my/your/him/her/it/themself, our/your/themselves have the distinction of being the only English paradigm to still distinguish 2nd person singular (yourself) and plural (yourselves), to say nothing of the nonspecific indefinite themself that is now widely used as the reflexive of "singular they". — John LawlerApr 16 '13 at 2:42
It would be called the same thing as the use of you in the singular is called; a singular use of a plural pronoun. Happens all the time. In this case it's the third-person singular use of plural they/their/them to refer to a non-specific indefinite human referent. Specifically, this is a use of the reflexive third-person pronoun, and that's doubly-inflected. Here the form themself is unambiguously singular, with the non-specific singular use of plural third-person them attached. Might as well get some use out of all that inflection. — John LawlerAug 10 '14 at 20:25
That's why the only useful rule is not to use it if you're in any doubt whatsoever. And if you're not in any doubt whatsoever, you can write down the actual rule, right? The one that covers all situations? No? If not, just don't use whom. Ever. Because it's never necessary except in fixed phrases, like To whom it may concern or For whom the bell tolls. Anybody who thinks it makes you sound ignorant is giving themself away as clueless about language. So ignore them. — John LawlerOct 11 '13 at 2:57
I found 41 occurrences in the OED, from Caxton's 1483 "Humble themself the one ageynst the other", to a 1978 quotation from American Speech "Personal singular you similarly takes what is formally a plural verb form (are, were), as do French vous, German Sie, and Russian vy; as with singular they-themself, this `pluralization' of singular you can be said to follow reflexivization (whence a plural verb but a singular reflexive yourself)." — John LawlerMay 23 '12 at 19:00
I feel your pair Stan ... I do. Here is an example of what you are talking about most likely. A not constructive question that is totally subjective and cannot be answered factually generated how much reputation in this case? I believe the user should have to give back all those up vote reps. — demongolemOct 9 '12 at 14:19
Is anyone else seeing weird caching across the network? For example, questions that show "Answered 7 minutes ago", but when you click on the question the most recent activity is 20 hours ago?
@ShadowWizard That’s because you jumped into the middle of something without paying attention to what had been going on in the conversation. Seldom a good idea.
@JanDvorak That’s an interesting idea. ER2 generally uses ourselves. However, examples such as a teacher tuttutting a child with ”I do think it time we learn to ask for ourself” are readily found in any substantive corpus.
Because the teacher is using that funny kind of we which is a second-person singular.
@LynnCrumbling true/tp cannot be used for answers because their job is to add the title of the question to the Bayesian doctype 'bad'. If you want to blacklist the poster of the answer, use trueu or tpu.
That edit didn't change the intent of the OP. Clearly a class was meant and classes don't end with parenthesis in c#. Beyond that the editor removed the salutation and that alone is worth approval....
@rene not a whole lot I think. The OP should just be aware he can flag "other" and explain there's a whole bunch of obsolete comments rather than flagging each individual one. I think that's the gist
> On April 30th 2010, I joined @StackExchange, then called "Stack Overflow Internet Services Inc." So today marks my 5-year anniversary! -- Ben Dumke-v. d. Ehe at 2:02 AM - 30 Apr 2015 via Twitter
Stupid history teacher. "I don't think we [the U.S. Gov] should be spending so much money on space exploration. We should spend it on more important things that will actually affect us"
Finding common ground and reaching a compromise is the road to peace. Telling people you're going to blow up the world if they don't do what you want is not.
@rene Yeah, spray a couple flower decals on there, totally legit.
@Andy Come on. These guys don't even try to hide it anymore.
@yellowantphil I don't see why the answers are getting downvoted (not like they should be upvoted.) They gave the asker what she wanted - the problem is in her question.
Just curious, why is there a required privilege (especially one as high as 1000) to view vote counts for a post? It's not like someone can mess up a post by just viewing the vote counts. Is it just to give people incentive to reach 1000?
Screenshot / Code Snippet
About
This small bookmarklet will allow anyone to use the "vulnerability" of the API that it allows you to check the up/down vote count - a feat you could normally achieve by being a 1k+rep user. Mainly useful for sites where you don't have this amount of reputation ...
An informal election like this would be highly unusual and probably unprecedented, but likely not disallowed. We can't run an official election (like Stack Overflow's) on a beta site like Buddhism, but we always honor a moderator's request to step down if desired and we take the community's input...
So.. what to do here.. the user posted this NAA that I brought up earlier. When told it was an NAA, he posted a dup to the original (and admitted it was a dup in the new question).
His new question is MUCH more verbose, but normally I'd close as dup of the other.
@LynnCrumbling Re-edit the old question instead. This way, the 'verbose' version is saved, but the original question remains intact, with all its rep gains/losses/information.
@LynnCrumbling Take his question and re-format it, so it can be added as an edit into the old question. (or have the user do it, if the +2 rep really matters)
mHotspot | Turn your Laptop into WiFi Hotspot www.mhotspot.com/ Free software to use your windows computer/laptop as virtual wifi router and create a free wifi hotspot.
Just curious, why is there a required privilege (especially one as high as 1000) to view vote counts for a post? It's not like someone can mess up a post by just viewing the vote counts. Is it just to give people incentive to reach 1000?
