Talk:We

message: On US (disambiguation), it says it's the oblique case but here, it says that its the nominative. Which is it? --Celestianpower hablamé 16:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That says "us" is the oblique case, which it is, and "we" is the nominative case. Adam Bishop 16:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry - my mistake. It's just the link there took me here. --Celestianpower hablamé 17:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: @Adam Bishop 102.11.106.207 (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominative case 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Atypical uses of we 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  I don't see the point of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Author's We

message: Ourself: 2. The reflexive of the generic we: oneself. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_personal_pronouns#Ourself --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic we 

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