The Volokh Conspiracy

"Someone who refers to himself in the third person" = a pompous ass. =)

NewWorldDan does not think he's a pompous ass. NewWorldDan merely thinks of himself as eccentric. NewWorldDan's wife refers to herself in the 3rd person when she's angry or frustrated with herself.

As to the topic of parenting, small children go through a lot of odd phases. NewWorldDan's 3-year-old has started calling her parents by first name. NewWorldDan liked it better when he was simply known as 'Daddy'.

Is the word exclusively masculine? Would a woman who refers to herself in the third person be an elleist?

As is the case for most of our quibbles with life, if they are minor enough and common enough, there's a Seinfeld episode dealing with it.

Wow. It's my second new word of the day. The first was "defenestrate." After I looked that one up (it means to throw through or out of a window) I thought to myself, "Who would ever use this word if they really wanted to communicate?" The use of "big" or obscure words frustrates communication, which is, as EV points out, the function of words.

I deal with a federal judge who refers to the himself in the first person plural. "We believe the evidence has shown..." I find myself biting my tongue and resisting the temptaton to intererupt with, "You and who else, your Honor?"

I do not know if this judge repeats the practice at home. I have visions of him telling his spouse, "We would like some more meat, dear."

In any event, I can vaguely understand why this judge has this affectation: He is saying that he is speaking not for himself, personally, but on behalf of the judicial branch.

That said, outside of the speech described in the above posts ("Mommy loves you"), refering to oneself in the third person singular is just weird. However, referring to oneself in the third person plural is likely a sign of mental illness.

...the basic function of a word (effective communication).

Pretty rash assertion. 'Effective obfuscation' is often the goal, or just beating people about the head and shoulders with your vocabulary.

Bob Dole definitely practiced illeism throughout Bob Dole's career.

Ahh...and all this time I thought cultural conservatives were going on about elitism. Never mind.

"I deal with a federal judge who refers to the himself in the first person plural. "

Maybe he thought he was in the service of the British Crown.

"OK, it's not 'favorite' in that I actually use it in conversation, since its obscurity makes it incapable of serving the basic function of a word (effective communication). But I still like to talk about it."

Doubtless you meant to say, "OK, it's not favorite in that Volokh actually uses it in conversation, since its obscurity makes it incapable of serving the basic function of a word (effective communication). But Volokh still likes to talk about it."

As the father of a nearly 3-year-old, I've noticed that the issue seems to extend to subject-object confusion in general. In one case, after hearing "Do you need me to carry you?" enough on long walks, she began to simply say "Want carry you." No, she didn't really want to carry me, she wanted to be carried.

The other day she told me "Ruth doesn't like me." This seemed odd, considering Ruth seemed to like her just fine. Eventually I got her to clarify that what she meant was, "I don't like Ruth."

I think you should always use the most appropriate word, defenestration included, instead of preemptorily dumbing down your language. You at least get to amuse yourself that way and you can always explain your meaning if asked. Otherwise, we all end up in the double plus ungood territory.

The use of the third person (or first person plural) is, of course, most common (and notorious) in scholarly writing. Scientific writing, in particular, has for a long time stuck to the convention of sticking to both the third person and the passive voice to produce a style that even scientists must find turgid.

Question: Are these all just affectations? This author (that is to say, I) thinks so. Or do they serve a useful purpose, to convey objectivity, impersonality, gravitas, etc.?

Or, to play devil's advocate, is the increasing rejection of these conventions, even in some scientific writing, but most clearly in other fields, just a sign of our culture's increasing narcissism, subjectivism, emotivism, etc.?

BobH: I think Houston Lawyer meant "preemptively."

BobH: But, for what it's worth, the 1895 Funk's Standard Dictionary does have a word "pre-emptory," meaning "related to pre-emption." So I will cut Houston Lawyer some slack.

Speaking of how children use language, does anyone know what legally became of the child-sex-abuse cases of the early 90's and the public-panic about repressed memories?

I was reminded by this article.

Is there a legal remedy that these people can use?

I seem to suffer from the lawyer's disease of making words up on the fly. I usually post comments with a dictionary near by, since the comments feature doesn't have spell check. However, spell check has its pitfalls, since I regularly use words that are not in Bill Gates's dictionary and I don't like all of his preferred spellings. The creation of confusion is sometimes half the fun. In addition, one of the most beautiful things about the English language is that you can occasionally make up a word and most everyone still understands what you meant.

Houston Lawyer - The most appropriate word should be used. But in determining just what that word is, I think you must consider the audience and objective of the communication. If you are trying to communicate, why would you intentionally use an obfuscatory word? (I think everyone reading this blog knows what that word means).

Yes, you should always use the most appropriate word. But when faced with two equally appropriate words, use the one that wastes the least ink. It makes lifeeasier on the reader, and thus increases the likelihood of conveying the thought.

Is there a legal remedy that these people can use?

Well, yes, now that suicide's been decriminalized. Other than that, no; Harshbarger et al. fall into the 'Important People' category.

OK, most of us can agree that referring to oneself in the 3rd person is arrogrant, narcissistic, or both.

What about those who conclude each comment with their own screen name, despite the fact that his/her screen name is clearly visible to all up top?

E.g., ending this post with "So says Adeez!!!"

If I may, it actually comes from "ille, illa, illud," one of Latin's many demonstrative pronouns.

Now we all know about "illeists," but where does that leave Caesar? The man wrote his Gallic War Commentaries often referring to himself using "ipse," meaning "he himself," further intensifying the power of the third person. What an ipse-ist Tacitean himself would make!

Seems to me that if you have a basic knowledge of English and maybe one other language (though that's not crucial), "defenestrate" isn't hard to puzzle out -- even if you've never encountered it in history class. The prefix "de" pretty clearly means something along the lines of "get out of" -- as in "debark" (get out of a boat) or "deplane" (get out of an aircraft). The "fenestr-" part of it pretty clearly refers to a window ("Fenster" in German, "fenetre" in French, "ventana" in Spanish, "vent" in English). And the "-ate" suffix pretty clearly implies action of some sort. Put 'em all together and it pretty clearly adds up to something like "through action, someone or something goes out of a window."

And of course, you could look it up if you weren't sure.

As the father of a nearly 3-year-old, I've noticed that the issue seems to extend to subject-object confusion in general.

I learned the distinction between you and me fairly early. My parents said we were going to Belle-Vue, a park with a zoo in Northern England. I heard Belle-Vue as Belve-You and so, naturally, I asked them when they were taking me to Belve-Me.

Speaking of how children use language, does anyone know what legally became of the child-sex-abuse cases of the early 90's and the public-panic about repressed memories?

The defendants in the first and perhaps most celebrated of the child-sex-abuse cases, the McMartin Preschool case of the 1980s, went on to live their lives under a cloud of suspicion. Even after the defendants were acquitted (with one of them, Ray Buckey, having his jury hung on a few charges, never retried), surveys showed the vast majority of the public believed them guilty. That was largely the result of one-sided press coverage.

The methods used to interrogate the children have now been roundly condemned, and it is safe to say the testimony pointing to the defendants' guilt was highly unreliable. One of the alleged child victims, now, of course, an adult, wrote a long story for the Los Angeles Times a year or two ago revealing how it was he ended up telling his interrogators things he didn't remember at all. He apologized to all the defendants, although, since he was a manipulated child, it really was not his doing.

Court TV's story on the McMartin case has a section on "The True Victims," which describes what happened to some of the defendants in other similar cases. You can find it here.

"when faced with two equally appropriate words, use the one that wastes the least ink"

Even if you are composing poetry?

For some reason defenestrate and throw the baby out with the bathwater are indelibly linked in my mind.

Thanks for the link, David Chesler.