- Mr. Raman would never want to be made a fool of.
- Mr. Raman would never want to be made a fool.
- Mr. Raman would never want to be made as a fool.
Please correct all.
Thanks.
Id ‘Raman’ the person’s first name or last (familt) name/surname?
If you intend it to be someone’s first name, you should not use ‘Mr.’
- Mr. Raman would never want to be made a fool of.
- Mr. Raman would never want to be turned into a fool.
- Mr. Raman would never want to appear (to be) a fool.
It is not strictly followed in India. That title is used the way the speaker finds it convenient, even with the first name.
The poster, perhaps, wants to know the use of ‘made’ in her sentences. Accordingly, check whether the following are acceptable.
2. Mr. Raman would never want himself to be made a fool.
3. Mr. Raman would never want to be made a fool.
Then it is not strictly grammatical English - which is fine with me, but you can’t have it all ways.
I would not class your sentences as correct.
In 2, you cannot use ‘himself’ unless you wish to indicate that he is the person who is making a fool of himself.
3 may just about be acceptable as a shortened, informal conversational form of ‘to be made to appear a fool’.
Okay. Even then, ‘Mr Raman would never want to make a fool of himself’ would be better.
It’s not clear. Is it a typo for ‘always’ or as it stands?
I can’t really accept ‘be made a fool’ without ‘of’ unless of course King Lear is talking about someone he has appointed as Fool (court jester)
Well, then could you differentiate between these two?
- Raman would never want to be made a fool of.
- Raman would never want himself to be made a fool of.
Are both acceptable?
I would use ‘himself’ as an emphatic pronoun and not as a reflexive one as in (2). In that case i would say -
Raman himself would never want to be made a fool of.
Will ‘Raman would never want to be made a fool of himself’ be meaningful?
Or, should it be ‘Raman would never want to make a fool of himself’?
Sadly, not to me!
What about the other added (edited) sentence? Did you mean both?
Yes, I’ll buy that one, Lawrence.
Thanks, Alan. See you later. Good night!
Although I make occasional typos, I don’t understand why you would not be clear regarding that phrase.
It is correct as it stands.
To use ‘always’ would not make any sense there.
Beeesneees,
- Raman would never want to be made a fool of.
- Raman would never want to be made a fool of himself.
Do they mean the same?
Thanks.
You’ve become confused by the ensuing discussion.
The 2nd sentence is not correct. You cannot use ‘of himself’ when someone else is the doer of the action, which ‘to be made’ indicates.
To use ‘of himself’ the sentence would be, “Raman would never want to make a fool of himself,” This would make Raman the doer of the action.
- Raman would never want to be made a fool of. - someone else would make Raman look or sound foolish.
- Raman would never want to make a fool of himself. - Raman would make himself (Raman) look or sound foolish.
Alan’s earlier sentence
Raman himself would never want to be made a fool of.
would be used in a situation where someone wished to focus on how Raman would feel if someone else made him look or sound foolish, so it does not carry the same meaning as the other sentences.
Most of the time it is obvious that someone would not want themselves to appear to be foolish, so in context that sentence would be used in a more complex pattern similar to this:
I would not want to make a fool of Raman, and, of course, Raman himself (or he himself) would not want to be made a fool of.
If the emphasis is on the fact that the doer of the action (not Raman) would not want to make Raman appear foolish, so when placed in context it would appear in these types of examples:
[i]If I did that then I would make Raman appear foolish. Raman would never want to be made a fool of and I, myself, would never want to make a fool of him.
If you did that then you would make Raman appear foolish. Raman would never want to be made a fool of and you, yourself, would never want to make a fool of him.
If they did that then they would make Raman appear foolish. Raman would never want to be made a fool of and they, themselves, would never want to make a fool of him.[/i]
So, you know how to explain things convincingly. This is what is expected of an NSE as I have often said although it does call for patience, concern and empathy.
Well, good, keep it up!
Talk about damned with faint praise. I’ll do what I can when I can as I always have. Nothing to do with what you say or do.
It was really sincere. Should I wonder at your ‘polite’ response? NO. You are unpredictable! BYE!
“Sincere” LOL!
“although it does call for patience, concern and empathy.” the implication is quite clear.
And as for ‘Well done, keep it up’, how transparently disingenuous.