Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Speaking about oneself in third person

I had to translate to English the following sentence, where the speaker 
speaks about himself in third person: "Ch'egli non ebbe mai altro 
maestro di fisica che l'esimio prof. [...]".
My translation was: "For he never had a physics teacher other than the 
eminent prof. [...]".
An English proofreader told me that, in such case, one has to use the 
pronoun "one" instead of "he": "For one never had a physics teacher 
other than the eminent prof. [...]".
I'm not really convinced, however. Do you have any suggestion?
Thanks,
Max


I would not use "one" in this case. It is not a good choice when you 
mean a specific person, that is; oneself. Regarding the use of "he" to 
refer to oneself, there may be an appropriate exception for poetic 
effect, but as a rule it is not used in American English.
If I were to choose to use the third person to identify the speaker in a 
sentence such as your example, I would say "for this author," or "for 
this student," or 'for this (other appropriate identifier)'.

On May 12, 1:21 am, Tony The Ice Man

The "egli", "ebbe" and "esimio" make the original sound pretty
peculiar,
at least to me, so maybe a deliberately strange register in English
would
be reasonable. Can someone Italian confirm that the original sounds
pretty stilted?

 pretty stilted?
Well, it just sounds old.
Ciao,
Enrico il Pentolaio.

 wrote in message
news:63f91b16-286b-4f51...@a34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
The "egli", "ebbe" and "esimio" make the original sound pretty
peculiar,
at least to me, so maybe a deliberately strange register in English
would
be reasonable. Can someone Italian confirm that the original sounds
pretty stilted?
In fact, that sentence was pronounced by Guglielmo Marconi round about 1900.
Actually, the sound of it is peculiar of those times, and my idea was to
convey this information using "he".

 this student," or 'for this (other appropriate identifier)'.
As I said to Adam, that sentence was pronounced by Guglielmo Marconi round
about 1900 and is really old-fashioned: nobody in Italy would currently
speak like that. So, it seems to me that "one" or "for this author," etc. do
not convey this detail, they look too "correct".
I think that a similar example could be that of the comic book Asterix,
where Caesar occasionaly speaks about himself  in third person. Here is a
dialogue from "The mansions of the Gods":
A senator: "He's great!"
Caesar: "Who?"
- "Er... you!"
- "Oh, him!"

 - "Oh, him!"
I suppose you could use "he," put an asterisk by the usage, and explain 
in the footnotes that Italians at the start of the 20th century used the 
third person to refer to themselves. But even Caesar in Asterix, which 
was originally written in French by the way, was confused by hearing 
himself referred to in the third person, by a third person, in your 
example. (OK, by a second person, but that wasn't as elegant to say.)
If you were to translate the archaic Italian polite Voi or even the more 
current Lei in formal references, how would you translate that into 
English? There is no form for it in English, we don't use it, just as we 
have never used the third person to refer to oneself, even in 'olden 
days'. In the U.S.A., We don't even have the royal "We" to fall back on 
to refer to oneself, except when a company manager is trying to diffuse 
blame for a personal blunder or amoral policy.
There was an archaic second person in English, "thou," which you could 
also choose to use if you want to invent your own grammar rules to 
convey English incorrectness. OK, I'm being a bit facetious. In sum, for 
readability and to convey the formality I would use "this student," or 
for academic historical correctness I would use "he" along with a 
footnote to explain to the perplexed English reader who is saying what 
to whom. Even better, I'd just use "I" with a footnote to the original 
third person usage.

Enrico il Pentolaio, 09:24, mercoled� 12 maggio 2010:

That often happens in laudatory speeches.
-- 
"Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the
cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are
worthless."
                -- Sinclair Lewis

Tony The Ice Man, 18:11, mercoled� 12 maggio 2010:

Weren't the Indians (native Americans, prime nations etc) that
spoke English referring themselves using "he" or their own
name?
" - Sitting Bull go sleep. - said Sitting Bull."
Or was that a fake?
-- 
Youth is such a wonderful thing.  What a crime to waste it on
children.
    -- George Bernard Shaw

 third person usage.
You're right, and I will follow your second suggestion: a footnote 
addressed to the perplexed reader. And, eventually, I can typeset the 
"he" in italics.
Thank you very much for your help!

 Alas, there isn't a third person equivalent of "thou"! :-)
                       ^^^^^
                       first

 wrote in message 
news:hsfcoa$len$1...@tdi.cu.mi.it...

Remember that Tony , as he says , speaks from a US perspective ; 'one' can 
be (has been) used in UK English to refer to oneself (the speaker) . 
Nowadays in normal use it means 'I and others' , as in 'One gets the 
impression that' (I use this sort of phrase to mean 'I think - and surely 
others must agree with me.. ') , but I'm sure that in the past it could more 
specifically represent the speaker alone , though I can't provide off-hand 
an actual quotation , and in the particular sentence given it would still 
sound odd . I think in the commonly-used jocular catchphrase 'One is not 
amused' (often attached to pictures of the queen looking glum) we have an 
example , and 'one' is often used instead of 'I' in parodies of the speech 
of Prince Charles , too .
Mike 

 wrote in message 
news:85698c...@mid.individual.net...

Here's an example of someone parodying a post on Twitter by the Queen  :
'While it would be delightful to read a tweet from the queen that read: "One 
is not in the mood for dignitaries today. One wants to watch the horse 
racing." '
Mike

 horse racing." '
It's true that my knowledge of the subtleties of British connotation is 
limited, but my guess would be that the example given has a closer 
relationship to the royal "we" than to a general usage that refers to an 
isolated speaker. I would be interested in seeing mainstream examples of 
a context in which "one" isn't generalized.

 can be (has been) used in UK English to refer to oneself (the speaker) .
In effect, if I get it right, the following quotation from Pam Peters' 
"The Cambridge guide to English usage" says pretty much the same:
	Just which personal pronoun 'one' replaces is not entirely clear: 
Historically it's a third person pronoun, though the context could make 
it 'I' or 'you' [...]. Often it seems detached, not as ego-centred as 
'I', nor as direct in its address as 'you'.
I couldn't find mention of this usage in any other English grammar in my 
possession (Maybe, you're now wondering why if I have so many grammars, 
my written English is so abysmal :-) ).
 > Nowadays in normal use it means 'I and others' , as in 'One gets the
 > impression that' (I use this sort of phrase to mean 'I think - and
 > surely others must agree with me.. ') , but I'm sure that in the past it
 > could more specifically represent the speaker alone , though I can't
 > provide off-hand an actual quotation , and in the particular sentence
 > given it would still sound odd . I think in the commonly-used jocular
 > catchphrase 'One is not amused' (often attached to pictures of the queen
 > looking glum) we have an example , and 'one' is often used instead of
 > 'I' in parodies of the speech of Prince Charles , too .
Summing up, I have the following choices:
i) 'I' would be the most straightforward and correct pronoun to use, and 
the subject would not be misunderstood. However, this choice would not 
convey the sound of the original Italian sentence.
ii) 'One' was actually used in the past to refer to oneself only, at 
least in UK English. 'One' could be thus the right replacement for the 
Italian pronoun 'Egli' used by Marconi, were it not for the fact that 
nowadays it is mostly understood to mean 'I and the others' or to be a 
parody of the Queen's speech. In Italian, afaik, 'Egli' does not suggest 
these other meanings, so that the original sentence just sounds old.
iii) The royal 'we', it seems too 'royalish' to me :-) (A good solution 
when the speaker is a politician, however). And just out of curiosity, 
if I'm not mistaken, Gollum in the 'Lord of the Rings' uses it to speak 
about himself.
iv) 'he' was my favourite choice because it's neutral and does not 
convey other meanings. However, I have to explain who it refers to. 
Besides, there aren't any references to such a usage of 'he'.
Whatever the choice - and now I'm again undecided between ii) and iv)! - 
an explanation has to be given. Gee, these subtleties are well beyond my 
knowledge of the English language :-)
Than you!

 wrote in message 
news:hsl1bg$ala$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

Yes , it's true that my examples suggest an equivalence to the royal 'we' ; 
though I have always thought of this use of 'one' as being simply formal 
upper-class rather than specifically royal (of course , the royal family are 
really the only ones subjected to parody) , and reflecting something of that 
reticence , that unwillingness to be too personal , which was thought of as 
typically English in the days before reality television , Facebook and an 
aristocracy one of whose principal ambitions is to ingratiate itself with 
pop stars .
(Of course , even the royal 'we' hasn't been restricted to royalty - 
everyone over here remembers Mrs Thatcher's announcement in 1989 on the 
birth of her first grandson : 'We are a grandmother'.)
I'll just have to keep my eyes open for some more mainstream examples .
Mike