How can [1.] and [2.] (coloured in grey beneath) be distinguished? Doesn't 1 entail 2? How can "the remembering
is [be] something that happens to you" (2), if "you are [not] idly recalling a past image of yourself" (1)?
I don't understand McWhorter's explanation beneath of why some verbs are pronominal reflexive, which means that the reflexive pronoun "is an inherent part of an unergative reflexive or reciprocal verb with no meaning of its own, and an obligatory part of the verb's lexical entry".
For example, I said [on p. 87 Bottom] that You mistake you for You’re mistaken from the wacky English example would be germane
to the Viking issue. What I meant was that the misled Portuguese gentleman thought of you mistake you as normal because you mistake yourself is the way you put it in French (Tu te trompes) and Portuguese (Tu te equivocas) (both meaning “You ‘yourself’ mistake”).
This is a quirk common in European languages, that often you do things “to yourself” which in English you just do. It tends to be with verbs having to do with moving and feeling. So in English, I have to go, but in Spanish, Tengo que irme (“I have to go ‘myself’”). With moving, this makes a kind of sense to an English speaker, although it seems a little redundant to us to have to specify that I am exerting the act of go-age upon myself. But the ones involving feelings are something else: I remember in English, Me acuerdo in Spanish (“I remember myself”), meaning
[1.]not that you are idly recalling a past image of yourself, but
[2.]that the remembering is something that happens to you, thus affecting not something or someone else, but you. While about the only Modern English versions of these are behave yourself, to perjure yourself, and to pride yourself (upon), many European languages mark hundreds of verbs in that way.