'We' for 'I' in writing

[Laurence Horn]

At 9:02 AM -0400 6/17/05, RonButters at AOL.COM wrote:
>In a message dated 6/17/05 12:47:58 AM, laurence.horn at YALE.EDU writes:
>
>
>>  As we have seen in Chapter 2,...
>>  We can see from these examples that...
>>  We can distinguish the following cases:
>>
>>  were systematically changed to
>>
>>  As I have seen in Chapter 2,...
>>  I can see from these examples that...
>>  I can distinguish the following cases:
>>
>>  Larry
>>
>Why not:
>
>As I have shown in chapter 2. ...
>As can be seen from these examples ...
>I distinguish the following cases:
>
>I find the "you/y'all-&-dear-reader(s)" WE a little patronizing, though I
>know we don't all agree about this.

Of course, these versions would have been a lot better than
Chicago's, and that's the kind of re-edit I settled on when I noticed
their earlier improvements.  In a 600 page book, it wasn't easy to
notice them all, though, and a number of their "As I have seen"
versions slipped through.  But in terms of preference, I don't see
any problem in treating the discovery of general principles by
working through complex data sets as a collaborative process between
writer and reader, whence the "we".  And of course "As can be seen"
is out because it's passive, and hence also verboten.   (And no, I
don't consider "As one can see" a viable alternative.)
I have no objection to either "As I have shown" or "As we have seen",
which incidentally are not interchangeable, and I find the latter no
more patronizing than the former self-aggrandizing.  But I really
draw the line at "As I have seen" or the even more flagrant "As I saw
above", which also crept through the process once or twice.  Of
course, I'm a longtime proponent of the
if-it-ain't-broke-don't-"fix"-it philosophy.

Larry