3 ms·
> the royal 'we' as in all of humanity Sorry for being a prick; but the royal 'we' is the exact opposite of the 'we' in all of humanity. Royal 'we' is when the
by azangru 4y ago
> the royal 'we' as in all of humanity
Sorry for being a prick; but the royal 'we' is the exact opposite of the 'we' in all of humanity. Royal 'we' is when the speaker refers to him-or-herself with the first-person plural pronoun, as was common among sovereigns ("we the Emperor of the French"). These days most commonly seen in academic articles, where single authors refer to themselves as "we" for some reason.
- cnity 4y ago> single authors refer to themselves as "we" for some reason They mean "we" as in "you (the reader) and I (the author)". "We can see that", etc. It's as if the author is a guide on a journey.
- tough 4y agoOh, nice, would have never guessed
- meowface 4y agoAre you certain that's the intention? That's not how I've interpreted it in papers.
- feoren 4y agoI'm sure conventions differ, but in Mathematics papers, yes, that is the idea behind "we".
- cnity 4y agoYou know, I'm not actually certain. But it's how I've interpreted it and been taught to interpret it in academic circles, albeit unofficially. If anyone has any formal indication that it means otherwise I'd love to read more about it. I'm also interested in your interpretation.