In “led themâ€, does 'them' include the leader himself?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
But the others wouldn't let Professor Quirrell keep Harry to himself. It took almost ten minutes to get away from them all. At last, Hagrid managed to make himself heard over the babble.
"Must get on -- lots ter buy. Come on, Harry."
Doris Crockford shook Harry's hand one last time, and Hagrid led them
through the bar and out into a small, walled courtyard, where there
was nothing but a trash can and a few weeds.
I think 'them' in this context only includes Hagrid and Harry because no others have been mentioned in later context, but I might be wrong. If this is the case, why didn't it put: "led him"(Harry) instead. Or is it idiomatic to include the leader himself in such contexts?
word-usage
asked Oct 4 at 1:01
dan
2,30711344
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
But the others wouldn't let Professor Quirrell keep Harry to himself. It took almost ten minutes to get away from them all. At last, Hagrid managed to make himself heard over the babble.
"Must get on -- lots ter buy. Come on, Harry."
Doris Crockford shook Harry's hand one last time, and Hagrid led them
through the bar and out into a small, walled courtyard, where there
was nothing but a trash can and a few weeds.
I think 'them' in this context only includes Hagrid and Harry because no others have been mentioned in later context, but I might be wrong. If this is the case, why didn't it put: "led him"(Harry) instead. Or is it idiomatic to include the leader himself in such contexts?
word-usage
asked Oct 4 at 1:01
dan
2,30711344
Unless something is explicitly stated, the referent of a pronoun can never be known with certainty (barring asking the composer of a sentence directly).
– Jason Bassford
Oct 4 at 1:18
Compare led their way, where their can include the one who leads.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Oct 4 at 12:42
3
When you break it down, it is a bad thing to do and really doesn't make sense. But she likely just quickly chose a word that was close enough and moved on, because when you read it quickly it works.
– Jamie Clinton
Oct 4 at 17:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
But the others wouldn't let Professor Quirrell keep Harry to himself. It took almost ten minutes to get away from them all. At last, Hagrid managed to make himself heard over the babble.
"Must get on -- lots ter buy. Come on, Harry."
Doris Crockford shook Harry's hand one last time, and Hagrid led them
through the bar and out into a small, walled courtyard, where there
was nothing but a trash can and a few weeds.
I think 'them' in this context only includes Hagrid and Harry because no others have been mentioned in later context, but I might be wrong. If this is the case, why didn't it put: "led him"(Harry) instead. Or is it idiomatic to include the leader himself in such contexts?
word-usage
asked Oct 4 at 1:01
dan
2,30711344
But the others wouldn't let Professor Quirrell keep Harry to himself. It took almost ten minutes to get away from them all. At last, Hagrid managed to make himself heard over the babble.
"Must get on -- lots ter buy. Come on, Harry."
Doris Crockford shook Harry's hand one last time, and Hagrid led them
through the bar and out into a small, walled courtyard, where there
was nothing but a trash can and a few weeds.
I think 'them' in this context only includes Hagrid and Harry because no others have been mentioned in later context, but I might be wrong. If this is the case, why didn't it put: "led him"(Harry) instead. Or is it idiomatic to include the leader himself in such contexts?
word-usage
word-usage
asked Oct 4 at 1:01
dan
2,30711344
asked Oct 4 at 1:01
dan
2,30711344
edited Oct 4 at 1:34
asked Oct 4 at 1:01
dan
2,30711344
asked Oct 4 at 1:01
dan
2,30711344
asked Oct 4 at 1:01
dan
2,30711344
2,30711344
Unless something is explicitly stated, the referent of a pronoun can never be known with certainty (barring asking the composer of a sentence directly).
– Jason Bassford
Oct 4 at 1:18
Compare led their way, where their can include the one who leads.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Oct 4 at 12:42
3
When you break it down, it is a bad thing to do and really doesn't make sense. But she likely just quickly chose a word that was close enough and moved on, because when you read it quickly it works.
– Jamie Clinton
Oct 4 at 17:16
add a comment |Â
Unless something is explicitly stated, the referent of a pronoun can never be known with certainty (barring asking the composer of a sentence directly).
– Jason Bassford
Oct 4 at 1:18
Compare led their way, where their can include the one who leads.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Oct 4 at 12:42
3
When you break it down, it is a bad thing to do and really doesn't make sense. But she likely just quickly chose a word that was close enough and moved on, because when you read it quickly it works.
– Jamie Clinton
Oct 4 at 17:16
Unless something is explicitly stated, the referent of a pronoun can never be known with certainty (barring asking the composer of a sentence directly).
– Jason Bassford
Oct 4 at 1:18
Unless something is explicitly stated, the referent of a pronoun can never be known with certainty (barring asking the composer of a sentence directly).
– Jason Bassford
Oct 4 at 1:18
Compare led their way, where their can include the one who leads.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Oct 4 at 12:42
Compare led their way, where their can include the one who leads.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Oct 4 at 12:42
3
3
When you break it down, it is a bad thing to do and really doesn't make sense. But she likely just quickly chose a word that was close enough and moved on, because when you read it quickly it works.
– Jamie Clinton
Oct 4 at 17:16
When you break it down, it is a bad thing to do and really doesn't make sense. But she likely just quickly chose a word that was close enough and moved on, because when you read it quickly it works.
– Jamie Clinton
Oct 4 at 17:16
add a comment |Â
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
In this case, "them" does refer to both Hagrid and Harry. "Lead" does not necessarily exclude the leader, as it can refer to a general course of action:
lead (v): 1.1 [with object and adverbial of direction] Show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside them.
For example, in the context of this story it would have been perfectly natural to have written:
As they negotiated the dark and twisty turns of Diagon Alley, Harry stepped close to Hagrid and whispered, "Where are you leading us, Hagrid?"
(Edit) Note that it would have been fine to write
Where are you leading me, Hagrid?
but the tone would have been significantly more mysterious, if not outright ominous. The collective "us" or "them" implies that, wherever they are going, they're going there together, but the singular "me" or "him" implies that, when they get to where they are going, Harry will have to face it alone.
answered Oct 4 at 1:28
Andrew
58.1k565127
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
I do not know the context, but "A led B" does not normally mean that A led himself. So, it may be that Hagrid is leading Harry and one or more others. Alternatively, it may be that the author meant to say something "Hagrid took the lead through the bar and out into ..." The idiom of "take the lead" certainly assumes that the leader was on the trip.
answered Oct 4 at 1:15
Jeff Morrow
7,932822
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:26
2
As I said, the phrase "take the lead" certainly includes the leader. But, in its literal meaing, one person leads, and one or more others follow. However, as other answers have explained, the leader is certainly on the journey, and that can result in locutions like "where are you leading us," because the leader and followers are going together to the same destination. Nevertheless, if it was merely two people, one leader and one follower, it would certainly be clearer to say "led him."
– Jeff Morrow
Oct 4 at 1:52
thanks! that's also what i thought orriginally.
– dan
Oct 4 at 2:12
@dan The context doesn't say explicitly when other people might have "stopped" following Hagrid and Harry. When they realized H & H were going out of Diagon Alley, they would be unlikely to follow them any further. Stories often leave the reader to "fill in the gaps" between what is explicitly said, written, or shown visually (in a movie).
– alephzero
Oct 4 at 9:18
1
@alephzero Even if other people kept following, Hagrid wasn't necessarily leading the other people (and in this context, definitely not). Btw, H&H were going into Diagon Alley in this scene (they go into the Leaky Tavern through the front, a bunch of people shake Harry's hand, then they go out the back of the Leaky Tavern here...after that they go through the magic portal from the back of the Leaky Tavern into Diagon Alley).
– user3067860
Oct 4 at 14:18
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I disagree with the other answers here. "Led them" and Harry's questions about "leading us" can only mean "Hagrid was leading Harry and some other people" IMO.
As a British English speaker (and a mathematician, so I'm familiar with weird logical ideas!) the notion that a person (i.e. Hagrid) can "lead himself" doesn't make any sense in English.
The definition of "lead" in https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lead is
Cause (a person or animal) to go with one ...
You can't "cause yourself to go with yourself".
In Peter's answer, the idea that someone can make a fire to "keep himself (and other people) warm" is perfectly OK, but that is not analogous to "leading himself." To take a different example, if Harry had asked Hagrid "Why are you talking to us?" the word "us" can only mean that Hagrid was talking to Harry and some other people - not that Hagrid was talking to himself!
Common sense would suggest that the crowd of people wanting to see Harry would naturally want to follow, wherever Hagrid was taking him. But the plot of the story is focussed on Harry and Hagrid, and what happens to the crowd of followers isn't important once they stop interacting with Harry - so Rowling just "forgets" about them. Describing what they did later would be "too much information", and only serve to slow the storytelling down.
answered Oct 4 at 8:49
alephzero
1,777412
I absolutely agree with what you're saying, but I think that in this case it does only refer to Hagrid and Harry, and is bad English.
– Guy G
Oct 4 at 9:56
1
No. 'led him' sounds like Harry didn't know the way. 'Led them' simply means (in this context) that Hagrid went first, with Harry behind.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 10:39
Being 'out of your mind' and 'beside yourself' don't make any sense in a related context but are still in use. Ms Rowling's use is quirky but not unheard of. She has a rather colloquial, writing-like-you-speak style.
– mcalex
Oct 4 at 20:35
2
This answer assumes that only the first definition of "lead" is relevant. To my ear, this sentence sounds much closer to definition 3, "be in charge or command of". That is, there was a group consisting of two people (Hagrid and Harry), and Hagrid was acting as the leader of that group.
– David
Oct 4 at 23:40
1
People can lead themselves. Why not? Judges "direct" themselves. bing.com/search?q=%22judge+directed+himself%22
– Ben
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
In your example
them
means both Harry and Hagrid, the sentence has an implicit both
led them (both) through the bar
in the same way
The fire he made, kept them (both) warm.
which includes the person who made the fire.
answered Oct 4 at 1:16
Peter
59.6k351105
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:24
@dan Thanks, I've edited my answer.
– Peter
Oct 4 at 1:39
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
As others have pointed out, it's obvious (but only) from the subsequent context (not published above) that 'led' in this instance refers only to Hagrid and Harry, so yes, Hagrid 'led himself'.
answered Oct 4 at 9:06
Strawberry
1535
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
For me, whether the leader is included or not conveys the amount of authority or relevant knowledge. If a scout master leads his scouts (i.e. others) through the forest, it implies the scouts are clueless and helpless without his leadership. If a someone leads a team of researchers (i.e. is part of the team), it implies that all members are more or less equally competent, but the leader is directing their efforts.
answered 2 days ago
MrSparkly
111
New contributor
MrSparkly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
In this case, "them" does refer to both Hagrid and Harry. "Lead" does not necessarily exclude the leader, as it can refer to a general course of action:
lead (v): 1.1 [with object and adverbial of direction] Show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside them.
For example, in the context of this story it would have been perfectly natural to have written:
As they negotiated the dark and twisty turns of Diagon Alley, Harry stepped close to Hagrid and whispered, "Where are you leading us, Hagrid?"
(Edit) Note that it would have been fine to write
Where are you leading me, Hagrid?
but the tone would have been significantly more mysterious, if not outright ominous. The collective "us" or "them" implies that, wherever they are going, they're going there together, but the singular "me" or "him" implies that, when they get to where they are going, Harry will have to face it alone.
answered Oct 4 at 1:28
Andrew
58.1k565127
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
In this case, "them" does refer to both Hagrid and Harry. "Lead" does not necessarily exclude the leader, as it can refer to a general course of action:
lead (v): 1.1 [with object and adverbial of direction] Show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside them.
For example, in the context of this story it would have been perfectly natural to have written:
As they negotiated the dark and twisty turns of Diagon Alley, Harry stepped close to Hagrid and whispered, "Where are you leading us, Hagrid?"
(Edit) Note that it would have been fine to write
Where are you leading me, Hagrid?
but the tone would have been significantly more mysterious, if not outright ominous. The collective "us" or "them" implies that, wherever they are going, they're going there together, but the singular "me" or "him" implies that, when they get to where they are going, Harry will have to face it alone.
answered Oct 4 at 1:28
Andrew
58.1k565127
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
In this case, "them" does refer to both Hagrid and Harry. "Lead" does not necessarily exclude the leader, as it can refer to a general course of action:
lead (v): 1.1 [with object and adverbial of direction] Show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside them.
For example, in the context of this story it would have been perfectly natural to have written:
As they negotiated the dark and twisty turns of Diagon Alley, Harry stepped close to Hagrid and whispered, "Where are you leading us, Hagrid?"
(Edit) Note that it would have been fine to write
Where are you leading me, Hagrid?
but the tone would have been significantly more mysterious, if not outright ominous. The collective "us" or "them" implies that, wherever they are going, they're going there together, but the singular "me" or "him" implies that, when they get to where they are going, Harry will have to face it alone.
answered Oct 4 at 1:28
Andrew
58.1k565127
In this case, "them" does refer to both Hagrid and Harry. "Lead" does not necessarily exclude the leader, as it can refer to a general course of action:
lead (v): 1.1 [with object and adverbial of direction] Show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside them.
For example, in the context of this story it would have been perfectly natural to have written:
As they negotiated the dark and twisty turns of Diagon Alley, Harry stepped close to Hagrid and whispered, "Where are you leading us, Hagrid?"
(Edit) Note that it would have been fine to write
Where are you leading me, Hagrid?
but the tone would have been significantly more mysterious, if not outright ominous. The collective "us" or "them" implies that, wherever they are going, they're going there together, but the singular "me" or "him" implies that, when they get to where they are going, Harry will have to face it alone.
answered Oct 4 at 1:28
Andrew
58.1k565127
edited 2 days ago
answered Oct 4 at 1:28
Andrew
58.1k565127
answered Oct 4 at 1:28
Andrew
58.1k565127
answered Oct 4 at 1:28
Andrew
58.1k565127
58.1k565127
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
I do not know the context, but "A led B" does not normally mean that A led himself. So, it may be that Hagrid is leading Harry and one or more others. Alternatively, it may be that the author meant to say something "Hagrid took the lead through the bar and out into ..." The idiom of "take the lead" certainly assumes that the leader was on the trip.
answered Oct 4 at 1:15
Jeff Morrow
7,932822
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:26
2
As I said, the phrase "take the lead" certainly includes the leader. But, in its literal meaing, one person leads, and one or more others follow. However, as other answers have explained, the leader is certainly on the journey, and that can result in locutions like "where are you leading us," because the leader and followers are going together to the same destination. Nevertheless, if it was merely two people, one leader and one follower, it would certainly be clearer to say "led him."
– Jeff Morrow
Oct 4 at 1:52
thanks! that's also what i thought orriginally.
– dan
Oct 4 at 2:12
@dan The context doesn't say explicitly when other people might have "stopped" following Hagrid and Harry. When they realized H & H were going out of Diagon Alley, they would be unlikely to follow them any further. Stories often leave the reader to "fill in the gaps" between what is explicitly said, written, or shown visually (in a movie).
– alephzero
Oct 4 at 9:18
1
@alephzero Even if other people kept following, Hagrid wasn't necessarily leading the other people (and in this context, definitely not). Btw, H&H were going into Diagon Alley in this scene (they go into the Leaky Tavern through the front, a bunch of people shake Harry's hand, then they go out the back of the Leaky Tavern here...after that they go through the magic portal from the back of the Leaky Tavern into Diagon Alley).
– user3067860
Oct 4 at 14:18
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
I do not know the context, but "A led B" does not normally mean that A led himself. So, it may be that Hagrid is leading Harry and one or more others. Alternatively, it may be that the author meant to say something "Hagrid took the lead through the bar and out into ..." The idiom of "take the lead" certainly assumes that the leader was on the trip.
answered Oct 4 at 1:15
Jeff Morrow
7,932822
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:26
2
As I said, the phrase "take the lead" certainly includes the leader. But, in its literal meaing, one person leads, and one or more others follow. However, as other answers have explained, the leader is certainly on the journey, and that can result in locutions like "where are you leading us," because the leader and followers are going together to the same destination. Nevertheless, if it was merely two people, one leader and one follower, it would certainly be clearer to say "led him."
– Jeff Morrow
Oct 4 at 1:52
thanks! that's also what i thought orriginally.
– dan
Oct 4 at 2:12
@dan The context doesn't say explicitly when other people might have "stopped" following Hagrid and Harry. When they realized H & H were going out of Diagon Alley, they would be unlikely to follow them any further. Stories often leave the reader to "fill in the gaps" between what is explicitly said, written, or shown visually (in a movie).
– alephzero
Oct 4 at 9:18
1
@alephzero Even if other people kept following, Hagrid wasn't necessarily leading the other people (and in this context, definitely not). Btw, H&H were going into Diagon Alley in this scene (they go into the Leaky Tavern through the front, a bunch of people shake Harry's hand, then they go out the back of the Leaky Tavern here...after that they go through the magic portal from the back of the Leaky Tavern into Diagon Alley).
– user3067860
Oct 4 at 14:18
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
I do not know the context, but "A led B" does not normally mean that A led himself. So, it may be that Hagrid is leading Harry and one or more others. Alternatively, it may be that the author meant to say something "Hagrid took the lead through the bar and out into ..." The idiom of "take the lead" certainly assumes that the leader was on the trip.
answered Oct 4 at 1:15
Jeff Morrow
7,932822
I do not know the context, but "A led B" does not normally mean that A led himself. So, it may be that Hagrid is leading Harry and one or more others. Alternatively, it may be that the author meant to say something "Hagrid took the lead through the bar and out into ..." The idiom of "take the lead" certainly assumes that the leader was on the trip.
answered Oct 4 at 1:15
Jeff Morrow
7,932822
answered Oct 4 at 1:15
Jeff Morrow
7,932822
answered Oct 4 at 1:15
Jeff Morrow
7,932822
answered Oct 4 at 1:15
Jeff Morrow
7,932822
7,932822
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:26
2
As I said, the phrase "take the lead" certainly includes the leader. But, in its literal meaing, one person leads, and one or more others follow. However, as other answers have explained, the leader is certainly on the journey, and that can result in locutions like "where are you leading us," because the leader and followers are going together to the same destination. Nevertheless, if it was merely two people, one leader and one follower, it would certainly be clearer to say "led him."
– Jeff Morrow
Oct 4 at 1:52
thanks! that's also what i thought orriginally.
– dan
Oct 4 at 2:12
@dan The context doesn't say explicitly when other people might have "stopped" following Hagrid and Harry. When they realized H & H were going out of Diagon Alley, they would be unlikely to follow them any further. Stories often leave the reader to "fill in the gaps" between what is explicitly said, written, or shown visually (in a movie).
– alephzero
Oct 4 at 9:18
1
@alephzero Even if other people kept following, Hagrid wasn't necessarily leading the other people (and in this context, definitely not). Btw, H&H were going into Diagon Alley in this scene (they go into the Leaky Tavern through the front, a bunch of people shake Harry's hand, then they go out the back of the Leaky Tavern here...after that they go through the magic portal from the back of the Leaky Tavern into Diagon Alley).
– user3067860
Oct 4 at 14:18
add a comment |Â
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:26
2
As I said, the phrase "take the lead" certainly includes the leader. But, in its literal meaing, one person leads, and one or more others follow. However, as other answers have explained, the leader is certainly on the journey, and that can result in locutions like "where are you leading us," because the leader and followers are going together to the same destination. Nevertheless, if it was merely two people, one leader and one follower, it would certainly be clearer to say "led him."
– Jeff Morrow
Oct 4 at 1:52
thanks! that's also what i thought orriginally.
– dan
Oct 4 at 2:12
@dan The context doesn't say explicitly when other people might have "stopped" following Hagrid and Harry. When they realized H & H were going out of Diagon Alley, they would be unlikely to follow them any further. Stories often leave the reader to "fill in the gaps" between what is explicitly said, written, or shown visually (in a movie).
– alephzero
Oct 4 at 9:18
1
@alephzero Even if other people kept following, Hagrid wasn't necessarily leading the other people (and in this context, definitely not). Btw, H&H were going into Diagon Alley in this scene (they go into the Leaky Tavern through the front, a bunch of people shake Harry's hand, then they go out the back of the Leaky Tavern here...after that they go through the magic portal from the back of the Leaky Tavern into Diagon Alley).
– user3067860
Oct 4 at 14:18
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:26
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:26
2
2
As I said, the phrase "take the lead" certainly includes the leader. But, in its literal meaing, one person leads, and one or more others follow. However, as other answers have explained, the leader is certainly on the journey, and that can result in locutions like "where are you leading us," because the leader and followers are going together to the same destination. Nevertheless, if it was merely two people, one leader and one follower, it would certainly be clearer to say "led him."
– Jeff Morrow
Oct 4 at 1:52
As I said, the phrase "take the lead" certainly includes the leader. But, in its literal meaing, one person leads, and one or more others follow. However, as other answers have explained, the leader is certainly on the journey, and that can result in locutions like "where are you leading us," because the leader and followers are going together to the same destination. Nevertheless, if it was merely two people, one leader and one follower, it would certainly be clearer to say "led him."
– Jeff Morrow
Oct 4 at 1:52
thanks! that's also what i thought orriginally.
– dan
Oct 4 at 2:12
thanks! that's also what i thought orriginally.
– dan
Oct 4 at 2:12
@dan The context doesn't say explicitly when other people might have "stopped" following Hagrid and Harry. When they realized H & H were going out of Diagon Alley, they would be unlikely to follow them any further. Stories often leave the reader to "fill in the gaps" between what is explicitly said, written, or shown visually (in a movie).
– alephzero
Oct 4 at 9:18
@dan The context doesn't say explicitly when other people might have "stopped" following Hagrid and Harry. When they realized H & H were going out of Diagon Alley, they would be unlikely to follow them any further. Stories often leave the reader to "fill in the gaps" between what is explicitly said, written, or shown visually (in a movie).
– alephzero
Oct 4 at 9:18
1
1
@alephzero Even if other people kept following, Hagrid wasn't necessarily leading the other people (and in this context, definitely not). Btw, H&H were going into Diagon Alley in this scene (they go into the Leaky Tavern through the front, a bunch of people shake Harry's hand, then they go out the back of the Leaky Tavern here...after that they go through the magic portal from the back of the Leaky Tavern into Diagon Alley).
– user3067860
Oct 4 at 14:18
@alephzero Even if other people kept following, Hagrid wasn't necessarily leading the other people (and in this context, definitely not). Btw, H&H were going into Diagon Alley in this scene (they go into the Leaky Tavern through the front, a bunch of people shake Harry's hand, then they go out the back of the Leaky Tavern here...after that they go through the magic portal from the back of the Leaky Tavern into Diagon Alley).
– user3067860
Oct 4 at 14:18
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I disagree with the other answers here. "Led them" and Harry's questions about "leading us" can only mean "Hagrid was leading Harry and some other people" IMO.
As a British English speaker (and a mathematician, so I'm familiar with weird logical ideas!) the notion that a person (i.e. Hagrid) can "lead himself" doesn't make any sense in English.
The definition of "lead" in https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lead is
Cause (a person or animal) to go with one ...
You can't "cause yourself to go with yourself".
In Peter's answer, the idea that someone can make a fire to "keep himself (and other people) warm" is perfectly OK, but that is not analogous to "leading himself." To take a different example, if Harry had asked Hagrid "Why are you talking to us?" the word "us" can only mean that Hagrid was talking to Harry and some other people - not that Hagrid was talking to himself!
Common sense would suggest that the crowd of people wanting to see Harry would naturally want to follow, wherever Hagrid was taking him. But the plot of the story is focussed on Harry and Hagrid, and what happens to the crowd of followers isn't important once they stop interacting with Harry - so Rowling just "forgets" about them. Describing what they did later would be "too much information", and only serve to slow the storytelling down.
answered Oct 4 at 8:49
alephzero
1,777412
I absolutely agree with what you're saying, but I think that in this case it does only refer to Hagrid and Harry, and is bad English.
– Guy G
Oct 4 at 9:56
1
No. 'led him' sounds like Harry didn't know the way. 'Led them' simply means (in this context) that Hagrid went first, with Harry behind.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 10:39
Being 'out of your mind' and 'beside yourself' don't make any sense in a related context but are still in use. Ms Rowling's use is quirky but not unheard of. She has a rather colloquial, writing-like-you-speak style.
– mcalex
Oct 4 at 20:35
2
This answer assumes that only the first definition of "lead" is relevant. To my ear, this sentence sounds much closer to definition 3, "be in charge or command of". That is, there was a group consisting of two people (Hagrid and Harry), and Hagrid was acting as the leader of that group.
– David
Oct 4 at 23:40
1
People can lead themselves. Why not? Judges "direct" themselves. bing.com/search?q=%22judge+directed+himself%22
– Ben
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I disagree with the other answers here. "Led them" and Harry's questions about "leading us" can only mean "Hagrid was leading Harry and some other people" IMO.
As a British English speaker (and a mathematician, so I'm familiar with weird logical ideas!) the notion that a person (i.e. Hagrid) can "lead himself" doesn't make any sense in English.
The definition of "lead" in https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lead is
Cause (a person or animal) to go with one ...
You can't "cause yourself to go with yourself".
In Peter's answer, the idea that someone can make a fire to "keep himself (and other people) warm" is perfectly OK, but that is not analogous to "leading himself." To take a different example, if Harry had asked Hagrid "Why are you talking to us?" the word "us" can only mean that Hagrid was talking to Harry and some other people - not that Hagrid was talking to himself!
Common sense would suggest that the crowd of people wanting to see Harry would naturally want to follow, wherever Hagrid was taking him. But the plot of the story is focussed on Harry and Hagrid, and what happens to the crowd of followers isn't important once they stop interacting with Harry - so Rowling just "forgets" about them. Describing what they did later would be "too much information", and only serve to slow the storytelling down.
answered Oct 4 at 8:49
alephzero
1,777412
I absolutely agree with what you're saying, but I think that in this case it does only refer to Hagrid and Harry, and is bad English.
– Guy G
Oct 4 at 9:56
1
No. 'led him' sounds like Harry didn't know the way. 'Led them' simply means (in this context) that Hagrid went first, with Harry behind.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 10:39
Being 'out of your mind' and 'beside yourself' don't make any sense in a related context but are still in use. Ms Rowling's use is quirky but not unheard of. She has a rather colloquial, writing-like-you-speak style.
– mcalex
Oct 4 at 20:35
2
This answer assumes that only the first definition of "lead" is relevant. To my ear, this sentence sounds much closer to definition 3, "be in charge or command of". That is, there was a group consisting of two people (Hagrid and Harry), and Hagrid was acting as the leader of that group.
– David
Oct 4 at 23:40
1
People can lead themselves. Why not? Judges "direct" themselves. bing.com/search?q=%22judge+directed+himself%22
– Ben
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
I disagree with the other answers here. "Led them" and Harry's questions about "leading us" can only mean "Hagrid was leading Harry and some other people" IMO.
As a British English speaker (and a mathematician, so I'm familiar with weird logical ideas!) the notion that a person (i.e. Hagrid) can "lead himself" doesn't make any sense in English.
The definition of "lead" in https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lead is
Cause (a person or animal) to go with one ...
You can't "cause yourself to go with yourself".
In Peter's answer, the idea that someone can make a fire to "keep himself (and other people) warm" is perfectly OK, but that is not analogous to "leading himself." To take a different example, if Harry had asked Hagrid "Why are you talking to us?" the word "us" can only mean that Hagrid was talking to Harry and some other people - not that Hagrid was talking to himself!
Common sense would suggest that the crowd of people wanting to see Harry would naturally want to follow, wherever Hagrid was taking him. But the plot of the story is focussed on Harry and Hagrid, and what happens to the crowd of followers isn't important once they stop interacting with Harry - so Rowling just "forgets" about them. Describing what they did later would be "too much information", and only serve to slow the storytelling down.
answered Oct 4 at 8:49
alephzero
1,777412
I disagree with the other answers here. "Led them" and Harry's questions about "leading us" can only mean "Hagrid was leading Harry and some other people" IMO.
As a British English speaker (and a mathematician, so I'm familiar with weird logical ideas!) the notion that a person (i.e. Hagrid) can "lead himself" doesn't make any sense in English.
The definition of "lead" in https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lead is
Cause (a person or animal) to go with one ...
You can't "cause yourself to go with yourself".
In Peter's answer, the idea that someone can make a fire to "keep himself (and other people) warm" is perfectly OK, but that is not analogous to "leading himself." To take a different example, if Harry had asked Hagrid "Why are you talking to us?" the word "us" can only mean that Hagrid was talking to Harry and some other people - not that Hagrid was talking to himself!
Common sense would suggest that the crowd of people wanting to see Harry would naturally want to follow, wherever Hagrid was taking him. But the plot of the story is focussed on Harry and Hagrid, and what happens to the crowd of followers isn't important once they stop interacting with Harry - so Rowling just "forgets" about them. Describing what they did later would be "too much information", and only serve to slow the storytelling down.
answered Oct 4 at 8:49
alephzero
1,777412
edited Oct 4 at 9:10
answered Oct 4 at 8:49
alephzero
1,777412
answered Oct 4 at 8:49
alephzero
1,777412
answered Oct 4 at 8:49
alephzero
1,777412
1,777412
I absolutely agree with what you're saying, but I think that in this case it does only refer to Hagrid and Harry, and is bad English.
– Guy G
Oct 4 at 9:56
1
No. 'led him' sounds like Harry didn't know the way. 'Led them' simply means (in this context) that Hagrid went first, with Harry behind.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 10:39
Being 'out of your mind' and 'beside yourself' don't make any sense in a related context but are still in use. Ms Rowling's use is quirky but not unheard of. She has a rather colloquial, writing-like-you-speak style.
– mcalex
Oct 4 at 20:35
2
This answer assumes that only the first definition of "lead" is relevant. To my ear, this sentence sounds much closer to definition 3, "be in charge or command of". That is, there was a group consisting of two people (Hagrid and Harry), and Hagrid was acting as the leader of that group.
– David
Oct 4 at 23:40
1
People can lead themselves. Why not? Judges "direct" themselves. bing.com/search?q=%22judge+directed+himself%22
– Ben
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
I absolutely agree with what you're saying, but I think that in this case it does only refer to Hagrid and Harry, and is bad English.
– Guy G
Oct 4 at 9:56
1
No. 'led him' sounds like Harry didn't know the way. 'Led them' simply means (in this context) that Hagrid went first, with Harry behind.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 10:39
Being 'out of your mind' and 'beside yourself' don't make any sense in a related context but are still in use. Ms Rowling's use is quirky but not unheard of. She has a rather colloquial, writing-like-you-speak style.
– mcalex
Oct 4 at 20:35
2
This answer assumes that only the first definition of "lead" is relevant. To my ear, this sentence sounds much closer to definition 3, "be in charge or command of". That is, there was a group consisting of two people (Hagrid and Harry), and Hagrid was acting as the leader of that group.
– David
Oct 4 at 23:40
1
People can lead themselves. Why not? Judges "direct" themselves. bing.com/search?q=%22judge+directed+himself%22
– Ben
2 days ago
I absolutely agree with what you're saying, but I think that in this case it does only refer to Hagrid and Harry, and is bad English.
– Guy G
Oct 4 at 9:56
I absolutely agree with what you're saying, but I think that in this case it does only refer to Hagrid and Harry, and is bad English.
– Guy G
Oct 4 at 9:56
1
1
No. 'led him' sounds like Harry didn't know the way. 'Led them' simply means (in this context) that Hagrid went first, with Harry behind.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 10:39
No. 'led him' sounds like Harry didn't know the way. 'Led them' simply means (in this context) that Hagrid went first, with Harry behind.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 10:39
Being 'out of your mind' and 'beside yourself' don't make any sense in a related context but are still in use. Ms Rowling's use is quirky but not unheard of. She has a rather colloquial, writing-like-you-speak style.
– mcalex
Oct 4 at 20:35
Being 'out of your mind' and 'beside yourself' don't make any sense in a related context but are still in use. Ms Rowling's use is quirky but not unheard of. She has a rather colloquial, writing-like-you-speak style.
– mcalex
Oct 4 at 20:35
2
2
This answer assumes that only the first definition of "lead" is relevant. To my ear, this sentence sounds much closer to definition 3, "be in charge or command of". That is, there was a group consisting of two people (Hagrid and Harry), and Hagrid was acting as the leader of that group.
– David
Oct 4 at 23:40
This answer assumes that only the first definition of "lead" is relevant. To my ear, this sentence sounds much closer to definition 3, "be in charge or command of". That is, there was a group consisting of two people (Hagrid and Harry), and Hagrid was acting as the leader of that group.
– David
Oct 4 at 23:40
1
1
People can lead themselves. Why not? Judges "direct" themselves. bing.com/search?q=%22judge+directed+himself%22
– Ben
2 days ago
People can lead themselves. Why not? Judges "direct" themselves. bing.com/search?q=%22judge+directed+himself%22
– Ben
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
In your example
them
means both Harry and Hagrid, the sentence has an implicit both
led them (both) through the bar
in the same way
The fire he made, kept them (both) warm.
which includes the person who made the fire.
answered Oct 4 at 1:16
Peter
59.6k351105
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:24
@dan Thanks, I've edited my answer.
– Peter
Oct 4 at 1:39
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
In your example
them
means both Harry and Hagrid, the sentence has an implicit both
led them (both) through the bar
in the same way
The fire he made, kept them (both) warm.
which includes the person who made the fire.
answered Oct 4 at 1:16
Peter
59.6k351105
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:24
@dan Thanks, I've edited my answer.
– Peter
Oct 4 at 1:39
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
In your example
them
means both Harry and Hagrid, the sentence has an implicit both
led them (both) through the bar
in the same way
The fire he made, kept them (both) warm.
which includes the person who made the fire.
answered Oct 4 at 1:16
Peter
59.6k351105
In your example
them
means both Harry and Hagrid, the sentence has an implicit both
led them (both) through the bar
in the same way
The fire he made, kept them (both) warm.
which includes the person who made the fire.
answered Oct 4 at 1:16
Peter
59.6k351105
edited Oct 4 at 1:37
answered Oct 4 at 1:16
Peter
59.6k351105
answered Oct 4 at 1:16
Peter
59.6k351105
answered Oct 4 at 1:16
Peter
59.6k351105
59.6k351105
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:24
@dan Thanks, I've edited my answer.
– Peter
Oct 4 at 1:39
add a comment |Â
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:24
@dan Thanks, I've edited my answer.
– Peter
Oct 4 at 1:39
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:24
but more later context seemingly only involved two persons, Hagrid and Harry. no others had been mentioned at all.
– dan
Oct 4 at 1:24
@dan Thanks, I've edited my answer.
– Peter
Oct 4 at 1:39
@dan Thanks, I've edited my answer.
– Peter
Oct 4 at 1:39
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
As others have pointed out, it's obvious (but only) from the subsequent context (not published above) that 'led' in this instance refers only to Hagrid and Harry, so yes, Hagrid 'led himself'.
answered Oct 4 at 9:06
Strawberry
1535
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
As others have pointed out, it's obvious (but only) from the subsequent context (not published above) that 'led' in this instance refers only to Hagrid and Harry, so yes, Hagrid 'led himself'.
answered Oct 4 at 9:06
Strawberry
1535
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
As others have pointed out, it's obvious (but only) from the subsequent context (not published above) that 'led' in this instance refers only to Hagrid and Harry, so yes, Hagrid 'led himself'.
answered Oct 4 at 9:06
Strawberry
1535
As others have pointed out, it's obvious (but only) from the subsequent context (not published above) that 'led' in this instance refers only to Hagrid and Harry, so yes, Hagrid 'led himself'.
answered Oct 4 at 9:06
Strawberry
1535
answered Oct 4 at 9:06
Strawberry
1535
answered Oct 4 at 9:06
Strawberry
1535
answered Oct 4 at 9:06
Strawberry
1535
1535
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
For me, whether the leader is included or not conveys the amount of authority or relevant knowledge. If a scout master leads his scouts (i.e. others) through the forest, it implies the scouts are clueless and helpless without his leadership. If a someone leads a team of researchers (i.e. is part of the team), it implies that all members are more or less equally competent, but the leader is directing their efforts.
answered 2 days ago
MrSparkly
111
New contributor
MrSparkly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
For me, whether the leader is included or not conveys the amount of authority or relevant knowledge. If a scout master leads his scouts (i.e. others) through the forest, it implies the scouts are clueless and helpless without his leadership. If a someone leads a team of researchers (i.e. is part of the team), it implies that all members are more or less equally competent, but the leader is directing their efforts.
answered 2 days ago
MrSparkly
111
New contributor
MrSparkly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
For me, whether the leader is included or not conveys the amount of authority or relevant knowledge. If a scout master leads his scouts (i.e. others) through the forest, it implies the scouts are clueless and helpless without his leadership. If a someone leads a team of researchers (i.e. is part of the team), it implies that all members are more or less equally competent, but the leader is directing their efforts.
answered 2 days ago
MrSparkly
111
New contributor
MrSparkly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
For me, whether the leader is included or not conveys the amount of authority or relevant knowledge. If a scout master leads his scouts (i.e. others) through the forest, it implies the scouts are clueless and helpless without his leadership. If a someone leads a team of researchers (i.e. is part of the team), it implies that all members are more or less equally competent, but the leader is directing their efforts.
answered 2 days ago
MrSparkly
111
New contributor
MrSparkly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
MrSparkly
111
New contributor
MrSparkly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
MrSparkly
111
answered 2 days ago
MrSparkly
111
111
New contributor
MrSparkly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
MrSparkly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
MrSparkly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f181500%2fin-led-them-does-them-include-the-leader-himself%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Unless something is explicitly stated, the referent of a pronoun can never be known with certainty (barring asking the composer of a sentence directly).
– Jason Bassford
Oct 4 at 1:18
Compare led their way, where their can include the one who leads.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Oct 4 at 12:42
3
When you break it down, it is a bad thing to do and really doesn't make sense. But she likely just quickly chose a word that was close enough and moved on, because when you read it quickly it works.
– Jamie Clinton
Oct 4 at 17:16