As I understand it, he and him are etymologically, and for purposes of grammar, different cases of the same word. If it's the same word, wouldn't it be sufficient to use himself alone—with maybe the redundancy reserved for emphasis?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
I would simply say, "Umm, yes." But that's flimsy. So I'll say, yes, it's often the case that himself is adequate by itself. (See?) And, of course, putting he and himself together can form an emphatic case.
But I also want to point out that the "he, himself" phrasing is also fundamental to a known logical fallacy, the bare assertion fallacy. Take a look at this slim yet informative article:
This leads to the sarcastic use of He, himself, has said it by which the validity of his statement is undermined by pointing out that the only basis for its supposed validity is that the speaker said it. This, then, is not an emphasis by repetition, but a refutation by mocking repetition.