[Ads-l] Singular "we"

[ADSGarson O'Toole]

Interesting topic, Bill. Here are a few other "we " types:

regal style we
regal we
insidious we
monolithic we
multiauthor we

Detailed citations appear further below.

For your entertainment you may wish to read the following article. The
earliest citation for the " tapeworm" quip was located by Ben Zimmer,
and the earliest citation for the " mouse in your pocket " joke was
found by Bill Mullins.

Only Monarchs, Editors, and People with Tapeworms Have the Right to
Use the Editorial 'We'
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/13/we/

Year: 1819
Book Title: The Cyclopaedia; Or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts,
Sciences, and Literature
Volume: XVI
Topic: Grammar
Database: Google Books Full View
https://books.google.com/books?id=36HCWjwrQicC&q=%22style+we%22#v=snippet&q=%22style%20we%22&f=false

[Begin excerpt]
The regal style we has respect to the king's counsellors, who are
supposed to advise the subject of discourse, and who are responsible
for it.
[End excerpt]

Year: 1872
Book Title: Chamber's Encyclopedia: A Dictionary of Universal
Knowledge for the People
Volume 7 of 10
Topic: Pronouns
Quote Page 794, Column 2
Database: Google Books Full View
https://books.google.com/books?id=Nq8hdO7AlWIC&q=%22editorial+we%22#v=snippet&

[Begin excerpt]
>From politeness and other rhetorical motives, various substitutes take
the place of the usual personal pronouns. The English language departs
little from the normal usage, except in you for thou, and in the regal
and editorial we.
[End excerpt]

Year: 1979
Periodical: The Political Science Reviewer
Volumes 9-10
Page GB 31
Database; Google Books Snippet (Warning: must be verified with
hardcopy or scans)

[Begin excerpt - unverified extract from Google Books]
Unfortunately, the final few pages of The Two Sources of Morality and
Religion are dominated by what in my review-essay in the 1979
Political Science Reviewer on Karl Popper I called the “insidious we”
- not the editorial “we,” not the royal “we,” but the monolithic “we.”
[End excerpt]

Year: 2016
Book Title: Impossible Persons
Author: Daniel Harbour
Chapter 4
Quote Page 68
Publisher: MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Database: Google Books Preview
https://books.google.com/books?id=HjtMDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA68&

[Begin excerpt]
Others claim that "we never speak in choruses" (Harley and Ritter
2002b, 31) and, hence, that the linguistic settings for multiauthor we
are extremely marked (Cysouw 2003).
[End excerpt]

Garson

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:05 PM Bill Mullins <amcombill at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've known of "editorial we" and "royal we" for most of my reading life.  I was just re-reading Thomas Harris's "Hannibal" and came across "magisterial we".  Since this is a re-read, obviously I've seen "magisterial we" before, but it never stuck.
>
> Are there other types of "we" that refer to a singular speaker?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org