user7290: We always talk and think about self as a noun. When reading Buddhist philosophy, I have never seen exceptions to this. Both "common sense looking" and "metaphysical looking" is looking for the self. 
For me, it has been helpful to think about the word 'self' as a verb. Something like this: Self is action, even the sheer directedness of mind is an action. "I" self therefore "I" am. Apart from that, "I" am not. There is no looker apart from the looking, no self apart from the selfing. To me, the question "what/where is the 'I' doing the selfing?" is redundant. 
The self is the (dependently arisen) selfing. If, and only if, the causes and conditions for selfing is present, there is selfing. If they're not present in the first place, or removed, there's no selfing.  
Why even assume or presuppose that there could be the slightest possibility of finding this “thing” self? Why look? It’s not helpful at all, in my opinion. 
Does anyone know thinkers/writers explicitly talking and thinking about self as action/verb?  

user7233: I don't think there's an overly good answer to your question. "Self", as a word, in every language, is a noun. Quite simply, this is why people use it as a noun.
Your suggestion to use it as a verb is interesting. I'd offer yet another suggestion: why think of words as being "nouns" or "verbs" at all? Noun and verb are just mind-made constructs to add a certain level of detail to concepts; you could just as easily opt to ignore them and consider the raw nature of the concepts themselves.

user315: Your question stands on the shoulders of giants and still can't get the job done.  I don't mean this badly; I mean you are starting from a very high state of being and inquiry (in relationship to most human thought), and asking the question that is kind of at the heart of the matter; and you're asking "the question" as if it was a 'duh' question - (how could anyone not know this? duh ), and it's not.
What's interesting is that any intellectual knowledge you (not you specifically)  have about this subject is fairly useless.  The answer to this question as an answer is not helpful, because what matters is the ability to unlock that understanding gradually (or all at once), pulling apart the masses of accumulated attachments that help construct the prison of the self (I prefer the word identity when attempting to distinguish the self of attachments).  
What's important isn't so much - 'Why talk and think about self as noun?', because this isn't an error that arises in grammar.  Grammar makes the trap that much stickier, but the process of relating to one's self as being fixed - of having immutable qualities, etc. - arose not out of the language used to identify us skin sacks - but rather the morass that us stuffed into those skin sacks.
Thinking about it in basic terms - the question isn't Why talk about self as noun?, but something closer to Why is it that I experience myself as - and only as - an *it*; an object sitting inside a sack of skin, looking out through two holes at a world outside of; and also separate from; myself? 
There is a source to the experience of a permanent, unchanging self, and the access to getting to that source is not attempting to codify your experience in  transitional language.  That's like putting a bow tie on a bowel movement.  The access to unminding is different for all of us - it involves dismantling our own barriers and attachment.  It's also a similar enough process that techniques such as those espoused by the Buddha and other great teachers were set up - and could be set up - to give people an access back to themselves.

user254: I think it's conventionally useful to identify 'the agent' of an action, for example, "Whose turn is it to wash the dishes?" implies there's a someone who'll be doing that (more or less reliably).
People (or people's feelings) are also nouned when they're used as the object of a sentence, for example, "I hurt him."
Personal identity (including family) are also important (in law/jurisprudence) in assigning ownership of property, for example, "Who owns this land?", and inheritance etc.

Having nouns in sentences is partly grammar. For example, Chinese sentence structure allows sentences without verbs (Wikipedia calls it "to some degree pro-drop or null-subject language"),

Today hike up mountains, tomorrow camp outdoors.

Perhaps similarly, a nounal subject is optional/implied/unecessary in Latin, where the suffix of the verb is conjugated to indicate the person. So for example amo, amas, amat is (or must be) translated into English by adding pronouns (required by English grammar) as "I love", "You love, and "He or She loves"; but maybe you can think of it without a noun (or with less of a noun) as "first person loving", "second person loving", and "third person loving".
I might have heard that linguists have theorized that there's a correlation between grammar and reality, but I haven't heard any details about that.
I don't know Pali well enough to include it in this answer, but look at an example of some Pali at the top of this page (which starts with the Pali atta for "self", from which we then get anattā or "non-self").

I found a comment about Sanskrit -- Jayarava said,

There’s nothing wrong with creating new verbs from nouns. We do it all the time. There’s even a technical term for such verbs: denominative. We also go the other way and create verbal nouns.
And it’s not just English that does this. Sanskrit is full of denominative verbs and verbal nouns.


7290: <p>We always talk and think about self as a noun. When reading Buddhist philosophy, I have never seen exceptions to this. Both "common sense looking" and "metaphysical looking" is looking for <em>the</em> self. </p>

<p>For me, it has been helpful to think about the word 'self' as a verb. Something like this: Self is action, even the sheer directedness of mind is an action. "I" self therefore "I" am. Apart from that, "I" am not. There is no looker apart from the looking, no self apart from the selfing. To me, the question "what/where is the 'I' doing the selfing?" is redundant. </p>

<p>The self is the (dependently arisen) selfing. If, and only if, the causes and conditions for selfing is present, there is selfing. If they're not present in the first place, or removed, there's no selfing.  </p>

<p>Why even assume or presuppose that there could be the slightest possibility of finding this “thing” self? Why look? It’s not helpful at all, in my opinion. </p>

<p>Does anyone know thinkers/writers explicitly talking and thinking about self as action/verb?  </p>
 7233: <p>I don't think there's an overly good answer to your question. "Self", as a word, in every language, <em>is</em> a noun. Quite simply, this is why people use it as a noun.</p>

<p>Your suggestion to use it as a verb is interesting. I'd offer yet another suggestion: why think of words as being "nouns" or "verbs" at all? Noun and verb are just mind-made constructs to add a certain level of detail to concepts; you could just as easily opt to ignore them and consider the raw nature of the concepts themselves.</p>
 315: <p>Your question stands on the shoulders of giants and still can't get the job done.  I don't mean this badly; I mean you are starting from a very high state of being and inquiry (in relationship to most human thought), and asking the question that is kind of at the heart of the matter; and you're asking "the question" as if it was a '<em>duh</em>' question - (<code>how could anyone not know this? duh</code> ), and it's not.</p>

<p>What's interesting is that any intellectual knowledge you (not you specifically)  have about this subject is fairly useless.  The answer to this question as an <em>answer</em> is not helpful, because what matters is the ability to unlock that understanding gradually (or all at once), pulling apart the masses of accumulated attachments that help construct the prison of the <code>self</code> (I prefer the word <code>identity</code> when attempting to distinguish the <code>self</code> of attachments).  </p>

<p>What's important isn't so much - <code>'Why talk and think about self as noun?'</code>, because this isn't an error that arises in grammar.  Grammar makes the trap that much stickier, but the process of relating to one's self as being fixed - of having immutable qualities, etc. - arose not out of the language used to identify us skin sacks - but rather the morass that <em>us</em> stuffed into those skin sacks.</p>

<p>Thinking about it in basic terms - the question isn't <code>Why talk about self as noun?</code>, but something closer to <code>Why is it that I experience myself as - and only as - an *it*; an object sitting inside a sack of skin, looking out through two holes at a world outside of; and also separate from; myself?</code>  </p>

<p>There is a source to the experience of a permanent, unchanging self, and the access to getting to that source is not attempting to codify your experience in  transitional language.  That's like putting a bow tie on a bowel movement.  The access to <code>unminding</code> is different for all of us - it involves dismantling our own barriers and attachment.  It's also a similar enough process that techniques such as those espoused by the Buddha and other great teachers were set up - and could be set up - to give people an access back to themselves.</p>
 254: <p>I think it's conventionally useful to identify 'the agent' of an action, for example, &quot;<strong>Who</strong>se turn is it to wash the dishes?&quot; implies there's a someone who'll be doing that (more or less reliably).</p>
<p>People (or people's feelings) are also <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/noun#Verb" rel="nofollow noreferrer">nouned</a> when they're used as the object of a sentence, for example, &quot;I hurt <strong>him</strong>.&quot;</p>
<p>Personal identity (including family) are also important (in law/jurisprudence) in assigning ownership of property, for example, &quot;Who owns this land?&quot;, and inheritance etc.</p>
<hr />
<p>Having nouns in sentences is partly grammar. For example, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_grammar#Sentence_structure" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chinese sentence structure</a> allows sentences without verbs (Wikipedia calls it &quot;to some degree <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language" rel="nofollow noreferrer">pro-drop</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null-subject_language" rel="nofollow noreferrer">null-subject</a> language&quot;),</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Today hike up mountains, tomorrow camp outdoors.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Perhaps similarly, a nounal subject is optional/implied/unecessary in Latin, where the suffix of the verb is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">conjugated</a> to indicate the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person" rel="nofollow noreferrer">person</a>. So for example <em>amo</em>, <em>amas</em>, <em>amat</em> is (or must be) translated into English by adding pronouns (required by English grammar) as &quot;I love&quot;, &quot;You love, and &quot;He or She loves&quot;; but maybe you can think of it without a noun (or with less of a noun) as &quot;first person loving&quot;, &quot;second person loving&quot;, and &quot;third person loving&quot;.</p>
<p>I might have heard that linguists have theorized that there's a correlation between grammar and reality, but I haven't heard any details about that.</p>
<p>I don't know Pali well enough to include it in this answer, but look at an example of some Pali at <a href="http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=157" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the top of this page</a> (which starts with the Pali <em>atta</em> for &quot;self&quot;, from which we then get <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta" rel="nofollow noreferrer">anattā</a></em> or &quot;non-self&quot;).</p>
<hr />
<p>I found a comment about Sanskrit -- <a href="http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/01/25" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jayarava said</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with creating new verbs from nouns. We do it all the time. There’s even a technical term for such verbs: denominative. We also go the other way and create verbal nouns.</p>
<p>And it’s not just English that does this. Sanskrit is full of denominative verbs and verbal nouns.</p>
</blockquote>
