Have…going for one/oneself





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}






up vote
1
down vote

favorite
2












There's this expression shown in Oxford:




have — going for one



Used to indicate how much someone has in their favour or to their advantage.



Why did she do it? She had so much going for her




In this expression, the pronoun coming after for always refers to the subject.



In the following 11 examples of the Oxford Dictionary, there's no example of a reflexive pronoun after for. Plus, the title of the expression has one instead of oneself.



So, I take it that you cannot have a reflexive pronoun come after for.



But then, there are numerous counterexamples of a reflexive pronoun coming after for in news articles and books:




...she was using blackorwhite thinking when she told herself that she had nothing going for herself... (book 1)



I'm not making any excuses for her but for a woman with so much going for herself Trevonne has low self esteem. (book 2)



One thing she had going for herself though was drive. (book 3)



Plus she had a lot going for herself. She was intelligent, funny, caring, ... (book 4)



Tonya makes it clear that skating was the only thing Harding had going for herself. (news article 1)



Even her attempt to have something going for herself outside the house, some kind of passion and hobby, got painted as tone deaf and self-indulgent... (news article 2)




So I wonder whether a reflexive pronoun in this expression is admissible.










share|improve this question














bumped to the homepage by Community 9 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.











  • 1




    Each of those samples could elicit an editorial comment. Overall, they are not well edited (the "news writing ones") or they reflect speech by characters in novels. That is not the best way to analyze or come to a conclusion about this....That's the problems with hits. They are only useful to say some thing is "out there".
    – Lambie
    Jan 30 at 22:39



















up vote
1
down vote

favorite
2












There's this expression shown in Oxford:




have — going for one



Used to indicate how much someone has in their favour or to their advantage.



Why did she do it? She had so much going for her




In this expression, the pronoun coming after for always refers to the subject.



In the following 11 examples of the Oxford Dictionary, there's no example of a reflexive pronoun after for. Plus, the title of the expression has one instead of oneself.



So, I take it that you cannot have a reflexive pronoun come after for.



But then, there are numerous counterexamples of a reflexive pronoun coming after for in news articles and books:




...she was using blackorwhite thinking when she told herself that she had nothing going for herself... (book 1)



I'm not making any excuses for her but for a woman with so much going for herself Trevonne has low self esteem. (book 2)



One thing she had going for herself though was drive. (book 3)



Plus she had a lot going for herself. She was intelligent, funny, caring, ... (book 4)



Tonya makes it clear that skating was the only thing Harding had going for herself. (news article 1)



Even her attempt to have something going for herself outside the house, some kind of passion and hobby, got painted as tone deaf and self-indulgent... (news article 2)




So I wonder whether a reflexive pronoun in this expression is admissible.










share|improve this question














bumped to the homepage by Community 9 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.











  • 1




    Each of those samples could elicit an editorial comment. Overall, they are not well edited (the "news writing ones") or they reflect speech by characters in novels. That is not the best way to analyze or come to a conclusion about this....That's the problems with hits. They are only useful to say some thing is "out there".
    – Lambie
    Jan 30 at 22:39















up vote
1
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
1
down vote

favorite
2






2





There's this expression shown in Oxford:




have — going for one



Used to indicate how much someone has in their favour or to their advantage.



Why did she do it? She had so much going for her




In this expression, the pronoun coming after for always refers to the subject.



In the following 11 examples of the Oxford Dictionary, there's no example of a reflexive pronoun after for. Plus, the title of the expression has one instead of oneself.



So, I take it that you cannot have a reflexive pronoun come after for.



But then, there are numerous counterexamples of a reflexive pronoun coming after for in news articles and books:




...she was using blackorwhite thinking when she told herself that she had nothing going for herself... (book 1)



I'm not making any excuses for her but for a woman with so much going for herself Trevonne has low self esteem. (book 2)



One thing she had going for herself though was drive. (book 3)



Plus she had a lot going for herself. She was intelligent, funny, caring, ... (book 4)



Tonya makes it clear that skating was the only thing Harding had going for herself. (news article 1)



Even her attempt to have something going for herself outside the house, some kind of passion and hobby, got painted as tone deaf and self-indulgent... (news article 2)




So I wonder whether a reflexive pronoun in this expression is admissible.










share|improve this question













There's this expression shown in Oxford:




have — going for one



Used to indicate how much someone has in their favour or to their advantage.



Why did she do it? She had so much going for her




In this expression, the pronoun coming after for always refers to the subject.



In the following 11 examples of the Oxford Dictionary, there's no example of a reflexive pronoun after for. Plus, the title of the expression has one instead of oneself.



So, I take it that you cannot have a reflexive pronoun come after for.



But then, there are numerous counterexamples of a reflexive pronoun coming after for in news articles and books:




...she was using blackorwhite thinking when she told herself that she had nothing going for herself... (book 1)



I'm not making any excuses for her but for a woman with so much going for herself Trevonne has low self esteem. (book 2)



One thing she had going for herself though was drive. (book 3)



Plus she had a lot going for herself. She was intelligent, funny, caring, ... (book 4)



Tonya makes it clear that skating was the only thing Harding had going for herself. (news article 1)



Even her attempt to have something going for herself outside the house, some kind of passion and hobby, got painted as tone deaf and self-indulgent... (news article 2)




So I wonder whether a reflexive pronoun in this expression is admissible.







idioms reflexives






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Jan 24 at 5:35









JK2

13111651




13111651





bumped to the homepage by Community 9 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.







bumped to the homepage by Community 9 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.










  • 1




    Each of those samples could elicit an editorial comment. Overall, they are not well edited (the "news writing ones") or they reflect speech by characters in novels. That is not the best way to analyze or come to a conclusion about this....That's the problems with hits. They are only useful to say some thing is "out there".
    – Lambie
    Jan 30 at 22:39
















  • 1




    Each of those samples could elicit an editorial comment. Overall, they are not well edited (the "news writing ones") or they reflect speech by characters in novels. That is not the best way to analyze or come to a conclusion about this....That's the problems with hits. They are only useful to say some thing is "out there".
    – Lambie
    Jan 30 at 22:39










1




1




Each of those samples could elicit an editorial comment. Overall, they are not well edited (the "news writing ones") or they reflect speech by characters in novels. That is not the best way to analyze or come to a conclusion about this....That's the problems with hits. They are only useful to say some thing is "out there".
– Lambie
Jan 30 at 22:39






Each of those samples could elicit an editorial comment. Overall, they are not well edited (the "news writing ones") or they reflect speech by characters in novels. That is not the best way to analyze or come to a conclusion about this....That's the problems with hits. They are only useful to say some thing is "out there".
– Lambie
Jan 30 at 22:39












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













My reaction upon reading every one of those counterexamples was, "That's obviously wrong!"






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Have (something) going for you is and idiomatic expression from the early ‘60




    If you have something going for you, or if something has something going for it, there are certain advantages that will make the end result successful:





    • They've got a happy marriage, great careers, wonderful kids - in fact they've got everything going for them.




    (Cambridge Dictionary)



    Have (something) going for one:




    to have a talent, skill, etc., that helps one




    • She's not as young as some of the other athletes, but experience helps, and she has that going for her. You should be more confident in yourself. You have a lot going for you!




    (M-W)



    Usage as evidenced by Google Books is most often correct with only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun and all main dictionaries don’t use definitions or usage examples with reflexive pronouns.



    I’d avoid using the reflexive pronoun even though the meaning is clear, so we could say that its usage is non standard.






    share|improve this answer























    • Just so you know, it's not just "only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun." There are plenty of instances in Google Books as well as Google News. And it's not really convincing to argue that simply not being listed in dictionaries makes a phrase non-standard.
      – JK2
      Jan 26 at 12:33










    • @JK2 - well, you can see from the Google chart that usage instance of reflexive pronouns is a small percentage compared to the more usual form. In any case it is an idiomatic expression, a set phrase. So what is your question? Grammar, usage, standard vs non-standard or what?
      – user240918
      Jan 26 at 12:41










    • @JK2 - The usage of a reflexive pronoun after the preposition “for” is common usage, but it has nothing to do with the expression in question. books.google.com/ngrams/…
      – user240918
      Jan 26 at 13:37












    • My inclination is to go with Ross. To me, all those examples feel wrong but that's not all there is to it. There might be dialects involved here. "What can I/we do for yourself today?" is a real example I hear not infrequently from call-centre people whose accents put them vaguely in the English Midlands. They never seem to go as far as "myself/ourselves" and they never fill out "you yourself" and I wouldn't swear to it but I think they do always add "just now" if not "today". Nothing to do with what they have going for them but apparently more idiom than mistake on the reflexive front…
      – Robbie Goodwin
      Jan 27 at 19:01










    • @RobbieGoodwin - well as I said they are non standard usages of the more established form of the idiomatic expression, whatever the reason may be.
      – user240918
      Jan 27 at 20:02




















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    While I certainly concur with the other answers on this subject, and the OP’s own feelings, that the use seems to be non-standard, I think what possibly is happening in the usage "have something going for oneself" is the the emphasis on one, from some aspect, by being the only recipient of the advantage, etc.:



    As in the definition of oneself in ODO:




    2 [emphatic] Used to emphasize that one does something individually or unaided.




    ‘the idea of publishing a book oneself’





    Or in Macmillan:




    2 used for emphasizing that you and not anyone else does something




    It’s important to complete the application forms oneself.





    If we consider this emphasis to be part of the usage, then all examples listed in the OP, as well as any other usage makes sense and the non-standardness is somewhat resolved.



    This emphasis point seems to be supported also by the fact that many of the Google search hits point to celebrities or people who are somehow are considered outstanding and unique, just one example of the several:




    As a solo artist this Toronto Reggae Singer has a lot going for herself. She writes, records, produces and is the Musical Ambassador for Read Across Jamaica Foundation




    With all that said, lacking this intentional emphasis, I am neither able to find any definition or usage note that would justify using oneself instead of one, so in such uses it would be unquestionably non-standard.






    share|improve this answer





















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "97"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f427786%2fhave-going-for-one-oneself%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      0
      down vote













      My reaction upon reading every one of those counterexamples was, "That's obviously wrong!"






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        My reaction upon reading every one of those counterexamples was, "That's obviously wrong!"






        share|improve this answer























          up vote
          0
          down vote










          up vote
          0
          down vote









          My reaction upon reading every one of those counterexamples was, "That's obviously wrong!"






          share|improve this answer












          My reaction upon reading every one of those counterexamples was, "That's obviously wrong!"







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 24 at 15:29









          Ross Murray

          1,263111




          1,263111
























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Have (something) going for you is and idiomatic expression from the early ‘60




              If you have something going for you, or if something has something going for it, there are certain advantages that will make the end result successful:





              • They've got a happy marriage, great careers, wonderful kids - in fact they've got everything going for them.




              (Cambridge Dictionary)



              Have (something) going for one:




              to have a talent, skill, etc., that helps one




              • She's not as young as some of the other athletes, but experience helps, and she has that going for her. You should be more confident in yourself. You have a lot going for you!




              (M-W)



              Usage as evidenced by Google Books is most often correct with only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun and all main dictionaries don’t use definitions or usage examples with reflexive pronouns.



              I’d avoid using the reflexive pronoun even though the meaning is clear, so we could say that its usage is non standard.






              share|improve this answer























              • Just so you know, it's not just "only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun." There are plenty of instances in Google Books as well as Google News. And it's not really convincing to argue that simply not being listed in dictionaries makes a phrase non-standard.
                – JK2
                Jan 26 at 12:33










              • @JK2 - well, you can see from the Google chart that usage instance of reflexive pronouns is a small percentage compared to the more usual form. In any case it is an idiomatic expression, a set phrase. So what is your question? Grammar, usage, standard vs non-standard or what?
                – user240918
                Jan 26 at 12:41










              • @JK2 - The usage of a reflexive pronoun after the preposition “for” is common usage, but it has nothing to do with the expression in question. books.google.com/ngrams/…
                – user240918
                Jan 26 at 13:37












              • My inclination is to go with Ross. To me, all those examples feel wrong but that's not all there is to it. There might be dialects involved here. "What can I/we do for yourself today?" is a real example I hear not infrequently from call-centre people whose accents put them vaguely in the English Midlands. They never seem to go as far as "myself/ourselves" and they never fill out "you yourself" and I wouldn't swear to it but I think they do always add "just now" if not "today". Nothing to do with what they have going for them but apparently more idiom than mistake on the reflexive front…
                – Robbie Goodwin
                Jan 27 at 19:01










              • @RobbieGoodwin - well as I said they are non standard usages of the more established form of the idiomatic expression, whatever the reason may be.
                – user240918
                Jan 27 at 20:02

















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Have (something) going for you is and idiomatic expression from the early ‘60




              If you have something going for you, or if something has something going for it, there are certain advantages that will make the end result successful:





              • They've got a happy marriage, great careers, wonderful kids - in fact they've got everything going for them.




              (Cambridge Dictionary)



              Have (something) going for one:




              to have a talent, skill, etc., that helps one




              • She's not as young as some of the other athletes, but experience helps, and she has that going for her. You should be more confident in yourself. You have a lot going for you!




              (M-W)



              Usage as evidenced by Google Books is most often correct with only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun and all main dictionaries don’t use definitions or usage examples with reflexive pronouns.



              I’d avoid using the reflexive pronoun even though the meaning is clear, so we could say that its usage is non standard.






              share|improve this answer























              • Just so you know, it's not just "only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun." There are plenty of instances in Google Books as well as Google News. And it's not really convincing to argue that simply not being listed in dictionaries makes a phrase non-standard.
                – JK2
                Jan 26 at 12:33










              • @JK2 - well, you can see from the Google chart that usage instance of reflexive pronouns is a small percentage compared to the more usual form. In any case it is an idiomatic expression, a set phrase. So what is your question? Grammar, usage, standard vs non-standard or what?
                – user240918
                Jan 26 at 12:41










              • @JK2 - The usage of a reflexive pronoun after the preposition “for” is common usage, but it has nothing to do with the expression in question. books.google.com/ngrams/…
                – user240918
                Jan 26 at 13:37












              • My inclination is to go with Ross. To me, all those examples feel wrong but that's not all there is to it. There might be dialects involved here. "What can I/we do for yourself today?" is a real example I hear not infrequently from call-centre people whose accents put them vaguely in the English Midlands. They never seem to go as far as "myself/ourselves" and they never fill out "you yourself" and I wouldn't swear to it but I think they do always add "just now" if not "today". Nothing to do with what they have going for them but apparently more idiom than mistake on the reflexive front…
                – Robbie Goodwin
                Jan 27 at 19:01










              • @RobbieGoodwin - well as I said they are non standard usages of the more established form of the idiomatic expression, whatever the reason may be.
                – user240918
                Jan 27 at 20:02















              up vote
              0
              down vote










              up vote
              0
              down vote









              Have (something) going for you is and idiomatic expression from the early ‘60




              If you have something going for you, or if something has something going for it, there are certain advantages that will make the end result successful:





              • They've got a happy marriage, great careers, wonderful kids - in fact they've got everything going for them.




              (Cambridge Dictionary)



              Have (something) going for one:




              to have a talent, skill, etc., that helps one




              • She's not as young as some of the other athletes, but experience helps, and she has that going for her. You should be more confident in yourself. You have a lot going for you!




              (M-W)



              Usage as evidenced by Google Books is most often correct with only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun and all main dictionaries don’t use definitions or usage examples with reflexive pronouns.



              I’d avoid using the reflexive pronoun even though the meaning is clear, so we could say that its usage is non standard.






              share|improve this answer














              Have (something) going for you is and idiomatic expression from the early ‘60




              If you have something going for you, or if something has something going for it, there are certain advantages that will make the end result successful:





              • They've got a happy marriage, great careers, wonderful kids - in fact they've got everything going for them.




              (Cambridge Dictionary)



              Have (something) going for one:




              to have a talent, skill, etc., that helps one




              • She's not as young as some of the other athletes, but experience helps, and she has that going for her. You should be more confident in yourself. You have a lot going for you!




              (M-W)



              Usage as evidenced by Google Books is most often correct with only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun and all main dictionaries don’t use definitions or usage examples with reflexive pronouns.



              I’d avoid using the reflexive pronoun even though the meaning is clear, so we could say that its usage is non standard.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jan 26 at 9:15

























              answered Jan 26 at 8:57









              user240918

              24k967146




              24k967146












              • Just so you know, it's not just "only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun." There are plenty of instances in Google Books as well as Google News. And it's not really convincing to argue that simply not being listed in dictionaries makes a phrase non-standard.
                – JK2
                Jan 26 at 12:33










              • @JK2 - well, you can see from the Google chart that usage instance of reflexive pronouns is a small percentage compared to the more usual form. In any case it is an idiomatic expression, a set phrase. So what is your question? Grammar, usage, standard vs non-standard or what?
                – user240918
                Jan 26 at 12:41










              • @JK2 - The usage of a reflexive pronoun after the preposition “for” is common usage, but it has nothing to do with the expression in question. books.google.com/ngrams/…
                – user240918
                Jan 26 at 13:37












              • My inclination is to go with Ross. To me, all those examples feel wrong but that's not all there is to it. There might be dialects involved here. "What can I/we do for yourself today?" is a real example I hear not infrequently from call-centre people whose accents put them vaguely in the English Midlands. They never seem to go as far as "myself/ourselves" and they never fill out "you yourself" and I wouldn't swear to it but I think they do always add "just now" if not "today". Nothing to do with what they have going for them but apparently more idiom than mistake on the reflexive front…
                – Robbie Goodwin
                Jan 27 at 19:01










              • @RobbieGoodwin - well as I said they are non standard usages of the more established form of the idiomatic expression, whatever the reason may be.
                – user240918
                Jan 27 at 20:02




















              • Just so you know, it's not just "only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun." There are plenty of instances in Google Books as well as Google News. And it's not really convincing to argue that simply not being listed in dictionaries makes a phrase non-standard.
                – JK2
                Jan 26 at 12:33










              • @JK2 - well, you can see from the Google chart that usage instance of reflexive pronouns is a small percentage compared to the more usual form. In any case it is an idiomatic expression, a set phrase. So what is your question? Grammar, usage, standard vs non-standard or what?
                – user240918
                Jan 26 at 12:41










              • @JK2 - The usage of a reflexive pronoun after the preposition “for” is common usage, but it has nothing to do with the expression in question. books.google.com/ngrams/…
                – user240918
                Jan 26 at 13:37












              • My inclination is to go with Ross. To me, all those examples feel wrong but that's not all there is to it. There might be dialects involved here. "What can I/we do for yourself today?" is a real example I hear not infrequently from call-centre people whose accents put them vaguely in the English Midlands. They never seem to go as far as "myself/ourselves" and they never fill out "you yourself" and I wouldn't swear to it but I think they do always add "just now" if not "today". Nothing to do with what they have going for them but apparently more idiom than mistake on the reflexive front…
                – Robbie Goodwin
                Jan 27 at 19:01










              • @RobbieGoodwin - well as I said they are non standard usages of the more established form of the idiomatic expression, whatever the reason may be.
                – user240918
                Jan 27 at 20:02


















              Just so you know, it's not just "only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun." There are plenty of instances in Google Books as well as Google News. And it's not really convincing to argue that simply not being listed in dictionaries makes a phrase non-standard.
              – JK2
              Jan 26 at 12:33




              Just so you know, it's not just "only a few instances of the use of the reflexive pronoun." There are plenty of instances in Google Books as well as Google News. And it's not really convincing to argue that simply not being listed in dictionaries makes a phrase non-standard.
              – JK2
              Jan 26 at 12:33












              @JK2 - well, you can see from the Google chart that usage instance of reflexive pronouns is a small percentage compared to the more usual form. In any case it is an idiomatic expression, a set phrase. So what is your question? Grammar, usage, standard vs non-standard or what?
              – user240918
              Jan 26 at 12:41




              @JK2 - well, you can see from the Google chart that usage instance of reflexive pronouns is a small percentage compared to the more usual form. In any case it is an idiomatic expression, a set phrase. So what is your question? Grammar, usage, standard vs non-standard or what?
              – user240918
              Jan 26 at 12:41












              @JK2 - The usage of a reflexive pronoun after the preposition “for” is common usage, but it has nothing to do with the expression in question. books.google.com/ngrams/…
              – user240918
              Jan 26 at 13:37






              @JK2 - The usage of a reflexive pronoun after the preposition “for” is common usage, but it has nothing to do with the expression in question. books.google.com/ngrams/…
              – user240918
              Jan 26 at 13:37














              My inclination is to go with Ross. To me, all those examples feel wrong but that's not all there is to it. There might be dialects involved here. "What can I/we do for yourself today?" is a real example I hear not infrequently from call-centre people whose accents put them vaguely in the English Midlands. They never seem to go as far as "myself/ourselves" and they never fill out "you yourself" and I wouldn't swear to it but I think they do always add "just now" if not "today". Nothing to do with what they have going for them but apparently more idiom than mistake on the reflexive front…
              – Robbie Goodwin
              Jan 27 at 19:01




              My inclination is to go with Ross. To me, all those examples feel wrong but that's not all there is to it. There might be dialects involved here. "What can I/we do for yourself today?" is a real example I hear not infrequently from call-centre people whose accents put them vaguely in the English Midlands. They never seem to go as far as "myself/ourselves" and they never fill out "you yourself" and I wouldn't swear to it but I think they do always add "just now" if not "today". Nothing to do with what they have going for them but apparently more idiom than mistake on the reflexive front…
              – Robbie Goodwin
              Jan 27 at 19:01












              @RobbieGoodwin - well as I said they are non standard usages of the more established form of the idiomatic expression, whatever the reason may be.
              – user240918
              Jan 27 at 20:02






              @RobbieGoodwin - well as I said they are non standard usages of the more established form of the idiomatic expression, whatever the reason may be.
              – user240918
              Jan 27 at 20:02












              up vote
              0
              down vote













              While I certainly concur with the other answers on this subject, and the OP’s own feelings, that the use seems to be non-standard, I think what possibly is happening in the usage "have something going for oneself" is the the emphasis on one, from some aspect, by being the only recipient of the advantage, etc.:



              As in the definition of oneself in ODO:




              2 [emphatic] Used to emphasize that one does something individually or unaided.




              ‘the idea of publishing a book oneself’





              Or in Macmillan:




              2 used for emphasizing that you and not anyone else does something




              It’s important to complete the application forms oneself.





              If we consider this emphasis to be part of the usage, then all examples listed in the OP, as well as any other usage makes sense and the non-standardness is somewhat resolved.



              This emphasis point seems to be supported also by the fact that many of the Google search hits point to celebrities or people who are somehow are considered outstanding and unique, just one example of the several:




              As a solo artist this Toronto Reggae Singer has a lot going for herself. She writes, records, produces and is the Musical Ambassador for Read Across Jamaica Foundation




              With all that said, lacking this intentional emphasis, I am neither able to find any definition or usage note that would justify using oneself instead of one, so in such uses it would be unquestionably non-standard.






              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                While I certainly concur with the other answers on this subject, and the OP’s own feelings, that the use seems to be non-standard, I think what possibly is happening in the usage "have something going for oneself" is the the emphasis on one, from some aspect, by being the only recipient of the advantage, etc.:



                As in the definition of oneself in ODO:




                2 [emphatic] Used to emphasize that one does something individually or unaided.




                ‘the idea of publishing a book oneself’





                Or in Macmillan:




                2 used for emphasizing that you and not anyone else does something




                It’s important to complete the application forms oneself.





                If we consider this emphasis to be part of the usage, then all examples listed in the OP, as well as any other usage makes sense and the non-standardness is somewhat resolved.



                This emphasis point seems to be supported also by the fact that many of the Google search hits point to celebrities or people who are somehow are considered outstanding and unique, just one example of the several:




                As a solo artist this Toronto Reggae Singer has a lot going for herself. She writes, records, produces and is the Musical Ambassador for Read Across Jamaica Foundation




                With all that said, lacking this intentional emphasis, I am neither able to find any definition or usage note that would justify using oneself instead of one, so in such uses it would be unquestionably non-standard.






                share|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  While I certainly concur with the other answers on this subject, and the OP’s own feelings, that the use seems to be non-standard, I think what possibly is happening in the usage "have something going for oneself" is the the emphasis on one, from some aspect, by being the only recipient of the advantage, etc.:



                  As in the definition of oneself in ODO:




                  2 [emphatic] Used to emphasize that one does something individually or unaided.




                  ‘the idea of publishing a book oneself’





                  Or in Macmillan:




                  2 used for emphasizing that you and not anyone else does something




                  It’s important to complete the application forms oneself.





                  If we consider this emphasis to be part of the usage, then all examples listed in the OP, as well as any other usage makes sense and the non-standardness is somewhat resolved.



                  This emphasis point seems to be supported also by the fact that many of the Google search hits point to celebrities or people who are somehow are considered outstanding and unique, just one example of the several:




                  As a solo artist this Toronto Reggae Singer has a lot going for herself. She writes, records, produces and is the Musical Ambassador for Read Across Jamaica Foundation




                  With all that said, lacking this intentional emphasis, I am neither able to find any definition or usage note that would justify using oneself instead of one, so in such uses it would be unquestionably non-standard.






                  share|improve this answer












                  While I certainly concur with the other answers on this subject, and the OP’s own feelings, that the use seems to be non-standard, I think what possibly is happening in the usage "have something going for oneself" is the the emphasis on one, from some aspect, by being the only recipient of the advantage, etc.:



                  As in the definition of oneself in ODO:




                  2 [emphatic] Used to emphasize that one does something individually or unaided.




                  ‘the idea of publishing a book oneself’





                  Or in Macmillan:




                  2 used for emphasizing that you and not anyone else does something




                  It’s important to complete the application forms oneself.





                  If we consider this emphasis to be part of the usage, then all examples listed in the OP, as well as any other usage makes sense and the non-standardness is somewhat resolved.



                  This emphasis point seems to be supported also by the fact that many of the Google search hits point to celebrities or people who are somehow are considered outstanding and unique, just one example of the several:




                  As a solo artist this Toronto Reggae Singer has a lot going for herself. She writes, records, produces and is the Musical Ambassador for Read Across Jamaica Foundation




                  With all that said, lacking this intentional emphasis, I am neither able to find any definition or usage note that would justify using oneself instead of one, so in such uses it would be unquestionably non-standard.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Feb 2 at 6:40









                  ib11

                  3781317




                  3781317






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f427786%2fhave-going-for-one-oneself%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

                      Alexandru Averescu

                      Trompette piccolo