Talk:We

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled

What is the origin of the 'royal we'? How did the royalty come to use this plural form to mean just themselves? --Cladist

Nominative case

On US (disambiguation), it says it's the oblique case but here, it says that its the nominative. Which is it? --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 16:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That says "us" is the oblique case, which it is, and "we" is the nominative case. Adam Bishop 16:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - my mistake. It's just the link there took me here. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 17:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Bishop 102.11.106.207 (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atypical uses of we

"The royal we (Pluralis Majestatis) is the first-person plural pronoun when used by an important personage ..." Isn't it singular rather than plural when used this way (by a monarch)? Bubba73 (talk), 00:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's plural because it is typically used to refer to the instiution/country that person is representing. For instance if the Queen of England says "we take thee to be our friend" it means England takes thee to be its friend, not the Queen herself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.159.248.1 (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Would it be relevant to add to the page that in some dialects of midland Norwegian, the word for "we" (vi) is replaced by "us" (oss). 193.69.146.66 16:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's plural in that it uses a plural verb: "We are not amused", not "We am not amused". By some accounts it means "God and I". Michael Hardy (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact concerning JP II

Popes have used the we as part of their formal speech with certain recent exceptions. The English translations of the documents of John Paul II dispensed with this practice, using the singular "I", even though the Latin original usually continued to use the first person plural "We".^{[citation needed]}

But in this letter, JP II's letter translated into English says "we". Michael Hardy (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this article

The bulk of the article is material about the 'Majestic/royal we' which has its own entire pretty clearly encyclopedic article, and the rest is roughly a paragraph on inclusive/exclusive uses of we; which doesn't seem to be enough to hold an article; and anyway it's covered elsewhere in English personal pronouns, which is also encyclopedic, and Wiktionary of course.

There's also technical issues with it, the article name is a pronoun, but WP:Title says it should be a noun. We don't really have non noun articles here.

So really there's nothing here, it's really being artificially fluffed up by content forks from other articles.

I think creating this article was a twitch reaction, based on the idea that everything should be covered, which is true, but it was done without any regard for whether it needs its own article; so I think it needs to be merged to the other general topics.- Wolfkeeper 13:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author's We

The "author's we" is used in university lectures too, not just literature. It's really more of an "academic" or "scientific" we. And it also has nothing to do with brevity specifically, it just indicates that the reader and author should be reaching the same logical conclusion. ie. the author could include all the necessary steps for a proof and still use "we". I have no idea where to get more information on this but it seems like what is there is original content. 69.223.181.229 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We → We (pronoun) – article about word 73.183.64.164 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Article about the word should remain as the primary topic of the term "We". No sufficient reason has been provided otherwise. An article about the word, or any other subject, does not automatically disqualify it from being a primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is clearly the primary topic. Kennethaw88 • talk 14:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above - Clearly a primary topic. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you notice this one? You are just wasting your time adding this individually. Next time, follow this format.

== Requested moves ==

{{subst:requested move

| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion

| current2 = Current title of page 2

| new2 = New title for page 2

| current3 = Current title of page 3

| new3 = New title for page 3

| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please default to Google Books or Google News Archive before providing any web results. Do not sign this.

}}

j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 07:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@3oWh pF0wHz: - Please Assume Good Faith and read WP:CIVIL while you're at it, The IP is probably new and not aware of bundling them and you having a go at him isn't helpful!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Generic we

Ourself: 2. The reflexive of the generic we: oneself. See also http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/English_personal_pronouns#Ourself --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

's ?

Is 's really a standard alternative to "us"? No reference is given for this. BeingCalyx (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - I've found an example: "Let's talk." But it seems unique to that verb. BeingCalyx (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]