Overuse of possessive adjectives (my/your/our/etc.)

Carthage   Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:45 pm GMT
How is it that it's the only Indo-European language where parts of the body and attire are described using the possessive adjective?

E.g. in French, it's "Nous nous lavons les yeux.", and in German, it's "Wir waschen uns die Augen", but in English, it's not the clear "We washed the eyes ourselves.", but the needlessly possessive (pun intended) "We washed OUR eyes."

Perhaps it reflects the lower intelligence of English-speakers. (Why do we need to reaffirm the possessor of the body parts/clothes?)
Carthage   Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:49 pm GMT
ERROR: The English sentences should be "We are washing the eyes ourselves." and "We are washing OUR eyes."
Benjamin   Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:18 pm GMT
One could equally argue that stressing that it is 'we ourselves' who wash the eyes is also somewhat unnecessary. Why does one need to reaffirm the person completing the action?

It seems that both English and French mention the person twice in this situation — in English it's the possessive adjective, whilst in French it's the reflexive pronoun.

It would also be possible to say 'we wash our eyes ourselves' or 'we ourselves wash our eyes' if we really wanted to emphasise that we were washing our OWN eyes and not having someone else wash them for us, but it would be unnecessary in most cases. However, saying 'we wash ourselves our eyes' or even 'we wash ourselves the eyes' sounds overly long-winded and generally a bit weird in English.

Having said that, one may find that saying 'we wash the eyes' is quite common in parts of Northern England.
Guest   Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:51 pm GMT
<<Perhaps it reflects the lower intelligence of English-speakers. (Why do we need to reaffirm the possessor of the body parts/clothes?)>>

I think this statement reflects your lower intelligence. :)
L6120CI   Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:33 pm GMT
"Perhaps it reflects the lower intelligence of English-speakers. (Why do we need to reaffirm the possessor of the body parts/clothes?)"

I have to agree with Guest: this statement is almost brazenly ignorant.
Jim C, York   Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:58 pm GMT
To me it makes sence, to wash your own arm, or was it to wash someone elses arm??? You can see this through Nrothern English, "our David, or Your Andrew", Even in the Irish version of English, "Your man Aodhan" there is no confusion, it makes it very clear, who or what you are talking about.
Guest   Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:19 pm GMT
RE: "Nous NOUS lavons les yeux." and "We wash OUR eyes."

The "OUR" corresponds directly to the reflexive "NOUS". Both are necessary so without either of them the meanings would change: We wash (the) eyes ~ Nous lavons les yeux.

"We wash the eyes ourselves." emphasises the fact that we do the action. The same can be done to the above French sentences by tagging on: nous-même.

Big deal.
Guest   Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:35 am GMT
How do you know that you are washing your own eyes and not someone else's if you don't say so.

... Ok, just read that back and it sounds kind of freakish but you get what I mean?
Guest   Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:48 am GMT
>>How do you know that you are washing your own eyes and not someone else's if you don't say so.<<

"We wash our OWN eyes." or "each of one us washes his own eyes" is usually understood by "we wash our eyes".
Guest   Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:51 am GMT
We we could wash the eyes, at the risk of sounding terribly clumsy.

Nous lavons mes yeux, pour moi. Merde.
Guest   Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:32 am GMT
Oui wash zhe aie.
Guest   Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:10 am GMT
>>"We wash our OWN eyes." or "each of one us washes his own eyes" is usually understood by "we wash our eyes". <<

Na what I meant is if you dont say "we washed OUR eyes" how would you know that you had washed you own eyes. If you say "We washed THE eyes" it sounds like your talking about a museum exhibit or summat.
Benjamin   Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:00 am GMT
I think the issue here is that Carthage seems to think that 'we wash' on it's own is the full English translation for 'nous nous lavons'. It is not.
Jim   Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 am GMT
Carthage seems to suffer from what might be called the "translation approach to second/foreign language learning". Instead of making a direct connexion between the world and the new language the connexion is made indiectly via the learner's first language. If you're too bussy comparing the two, you don't end up appreciation the new language. Perhaps I read too much into it but the bottom line is that this is the way English is and if you don't like it, too bad.
j   Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:11 am GMT
I'm completely agree with Lim: "this is the way English is and if you don't like it, too bad."
But it would be very interesting to find out WHY it's that. I believe there is nothing accidental in the way a language designed.
I remember exactly how this special feature struck me the hardest when I just started English studies.