 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010We is collectively speaking
Let me ask a question about the phrase from a novel. "I'm confident we're going to find him and a lot of other a.sholes." "We?" "We is collectively speaking," he explains. "We as in us good guys. (Last Precinct,p79, by P. Cornwell) context: Marino, a detecive, refers to someone whom he has been aiming to catch, and explains the present situation to Benton, who have been out of contact, so unimfomred enough. question: meaning of "We is collectively speaking" Benton asked, "We?" Marino replied, "We is collectively speaking." Des Benton imply that that "we" inclueds "me" ? Marino means that this "we" is general like "us", or good guys including themselves. > Let me ask a question about the phrase from a novel. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Marino means that this "we" is general like "us", or good guys > including themselves. (Martino says "we"; Benton asks whom Martino means.) "We" would usually mean Martino and at least one other person, perhaps his assistant, perhaps his squad, perhaps the whole department. However, sometimes a single person acting alone will use "we," usually to indicate that he is doing whatever it is on behalf of all, even people who know nothing about the situation. > Let me ask a question about the phrase from a novel. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Marino means that this "we" is general like "us", or good guys > including themselves. Marino means the police will catch the person. Benton is asking for clarification of "we", which can mean any group that includes Marino, and as Cece said, can sometimes be the same as "I" for some speakers. I can imagine two reasons this conversation could happen this way. One is that Benton may be asking whether Marino means just the two of them--"We?" could mean "You and me?" The other is that Benton may be asking whether Marino expects to be involved. In that case Marino's answer means, "It doesn't matter whether I'm involved. I belong to the police department, and I think of anything the department does as done by us together." Maybe just "anything good the department does". No doubt there are other possible reasons. The context might help you tell which one is right. -- Jerry Friedman > > Des Benton imply that that "we" inclueds "me" ? > > Marino means that this "we" is general like "us", or good guys > > including themselves. > I can imagine two reasons this conversation could happen this way. > One is that Benton may be asking whether Marino means just the two of > them--"We?" could mean "You and me?" There was old joke at work when someone would say, "we need to do X." Someone would reply, "What do you mean, we? You have a mouse in your pocket?" Brian  SignatureDay 385 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project Default User filted: >> > Des Benton imply that that "we" inclueds "me" ? >> > Marino means that this "we" is general like "us", or good guys [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Someone would reply, "What do you mean, we? You have a mouse in your >pocket?" I believe we* covered a well-known instance of this a while back: http://members.cox.net/radishman/mad_what_you_mean_we.jpg ....r * as in AUE Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle We is collectively speaking. In this sentences, as an usage of "collectively speaking" which is among the three below? 1) progressive 2) gerund 3) adjective > We is collectively speaking. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 2) gerund > 3) adjective You can understand it as a progressive: "When I say 'we', I am speaking collectively." Or a participle: "I say 'we', speaking collectively." Or a gerund: "My use of 'we' is an instance of speaking collectively." The original sentence is easily understandable to a native speaker and I think could easily be produced by a native speaker, but it's grammatically unusual. To my intuition, what would have been in the character's mind is closest to my gerund sentence. -- Jerry Friedman > Let me ask a question about the phrase from a novel. > > "I'm confident we're going to find him and a lot of other a.sholes." > "We?" > "We is collectively speaking," he explains. "We as in us good guys. > (Last Precinct,p79, by P. Cornwell) Strictly speaking, this should be punctuated with nested quotation marks: "I'm confident we're going to find him and a lot of other a.sholes." "'We?'" "'We' is collectively speaking," he explains. "'We' as in 'us good guys'." (Last Precinct,p79, by P. Cornwell) > context: > Marino, a detecive, refers to someone whom he has been aiming to > catch, and explains the present situation to Benton, who have Has. > been out of contact, so unimfomred enough. > question: meaning of "We is collectively speaking" > Benton asked, "We?" > Marino replied, "We is collectively speaking." > > [Does] Benton imply that that "we" inclueds "me" ? Benton is asking who "we" includes; it's not more specific. However, the *most likely reason* someone would ask is to know whether the word includes himself/herself. In other words, Benton is *probably* asking whether "we" includes Benton, but it's not really clear. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "...one man's feature is another man's bug." msb@vex.net --Chris Torek My text in this article is in the public domain. "We is collectively speaking," he explains. "We as in us good guys. About the sentence above, can this be rewritten like: He explains, "We is we as us in good guys, collectively speaking." I couldn't get the usage of "collectively speaking" clearly. > "We is collectively speaking," he explains. "We as in us good guys. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I couldn't get the usage of "collectively speaking" clearly. He is saying that his use of "we" is collective: that it refers to a group. I suppose the alternative to the collective "we" is the royal "we", used by one person to mean himself or herself. In formal standard English, this is properly used only by a monarch or a very grand personage (it's more widely used in some dialects). Benton may be challenging Marino's use of the plural, thinking that he is referring only to himself, or may be assuming that he is speaking a non-standard dialect; and Marino may be denying the charge by explaining that he means all of them. Is the character a self-important man? Does he speak standard English? Are the characters rivals who play dominance games with each other? All this is very speculative. You may have to decide among these explanations and the others suggested, all of them valid, in my opinion, on the basis of the larger context of the book. C.D. Bellemare: > He is saying that his use of "we" is collective: that it refers to a > group. I suppose the alternative to the collective "we" is the royal > "we", used by one person to mean himself or herself... I think the alternative here would be that it was the speaker and one other person, perhaps the listener. SignatureMark Brader "[It] was the kind of town where they spell Toronto trouble TRUBIL, and if you try to correct them, msb@vex.net they kill you." -- Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid > C.D. Bellemare: >> He is saying that his use of "we" is collective: that it refers to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think the alternative here would be that it was the speaker and > one other person, perhaps the listener. You wouldn't consider that to be a collective "we"? I intended "group" to cover groups of two. But your suggestion, that Benton may simply be asking whether Mariano means "we" to be inclusive of Benton or not, is a valid possibility, as I said somewhere in the snippage. C.D. Bellemare: >>> He is saying that his use of "we" is collective: that it refers to >>> a group. I suppose the alternative to the collective "we" is the >>> royal "we", used by one person to mean himself or herself... Mark Brader: >> I think the alternative here would be that it was the speaker and >> one other person, perhaps the listener. C.D. Bellemare: > You wouldn't consider that to be a collective "we"? I intended > "group" to cover groups of two. But that is the normal use of "we" -- there are only a few specialized senses where it *doesn't* cover a group of at least two. Hence the speaker must have been making some other distinction. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Defendant's speech ends in long sentence" msb@vex.net | --Minneapolis Tribune, February 25, 1981 > C.D. Bellemare: >>>> He is saying that his use of "we" is collective: that it refers [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > two. Hence the speaker must have been making some other > distinction. ["I'm confident we're going to find him and a lot of other a.sholes." "We?" "We is collectively speaking," he explains. "We as in us good guys.] I haven't read the novel, but I get the impression from the dialogue that they are sparring. The meaning of "we" may not have been the same in the original utterance as it was explained to be, in response to the other character's challenge. For example, the distinction might be between an original royal "we" and the collective version meaning the two of them, ironically called "us good guys", but deniable, as possibly meaning the whole copshop or even all the forces of righteousness. A lot of that depends on my having guessed right about the relationship of the two characters, of course. Maybe I'll see if I can find the book next time I'm in the library (BrE "in library":). >He is saying that his use of "we" is collective: that it refers to a >group. I suppose the alternative to the collective "we" is the royal >"we", used by one person to mean himself or herself. In formal >standard English, this is properly used only by a monarch or a very >grand personage (it's more widely used in some dialects). In academic register it means "my graduate students". There is also the "editorial 'we'", as in "We regret the error", whereby a publication speaks for itself in the collective voice of its editors (or editorial board, in the case of an opinion piece [AntiqueBrE "leading article"]). -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> He is saying that his use of "we" is collective: that it refers to >> a group. I suppose the alternative to the collective "we" is the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > its editors (or editorial board, in the case of an opinion piece > [AntiqueBrE "leading article"]). Agreed, although I see those as collective, while I think of the royal "we" as the counterpart of the deferentially plural "you". When I use it, I sometimes mean "my dog". But I was trying to think of uses that Benton might challenge. >>He is saying that his use of "we" is collective: that it refers to a >>group. I suppose the alternative to the collective "we" is the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > its editors (or editorial board, in the case of an opinion piece > [AntiqueBrE "leading article"]). Also the "authorial 'we'" (first person plural): "all of the authors of this paper, of which there happen to be one", the "nursing 'we'" (second person singular): "And how are we feeling this morning?", and the "political 'we'" (second person plural): "We're going to have to tighten our belts." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>He is saying that his use of "we" is collective: that it refers to >>>a group. I suppose the alternative to the collective "we" is the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Also the "authorial 'we'" (first person plural): Or, rather, "singular". > "all of the authors of this paper, of which there happen to be one", > the "nursing 'we'" (second person singular): "And how are we feeling > this morning?", and the "political 'we'" (second person plural): > "We're going to have to tighten our belts." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"You can't prove it *isn't* so!" is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic--as Palo Alto, CA 94304 |though it were necessary to submit |a piece of the moon to chemical kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |analysis before you could be sure (650)857-7572 |that it was not made of green |cheese. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Bergen Evans <snip> >> There is also the "editorial 'we'", as in "We regret the error", >> whereby a publication speaks for itself in the collective voice of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the "political 'we'" (second person plural): "We're going to have to >tighten our belts." There is also the abhorrent "AUE we", used by a handful of members to refer to what is or isn't correctly expressed in English. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> He is saying that his use of "we" is collective: that it refers >>> to a group. I suppose the alternative to the collective "we" is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Also the "authorial 'we'" (first person plural): "all of the authors > of this paper, of which there happen to be one", That's a new one, maybe. I was thinking it was We, the Grand Personage, but maybe it comes more from the habit of avoiding responsibility, acquired earlier in a career when there were more authors. And there's the related Civil-servant's We, the Chickens There Ain't Nobody Here But. > the "nursing 'we'" > (second person singular): "And how are we feeling this morning?", And third person, usually singular. That's the one that means my dog. "We're feeling arthritic but cheerful." Come to think of it, that's me too. My doggie, myself. > and the "political 'we'" (second person plural): "We're going to > have to tighten our belts." Ah, the We Divine. The opposite, in a way, of the Nurse's We. The unmoved mover is a very grand personage indeed. Almost a Doctor. Once you get started, they multiply wildly. >> Also the "authorial 'we'" (first person plural): "all of the authors >> of this paper, of which there happen to be one", [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > authors. And there's the related Civil-servant's We, the Chickens > There Ain't Nobody Here But. I think that there are a few things going on, not the least of which being uncertainty at the time of writing any particular part of the paper over who was going to eventually be listed as an author for the whole thing. (If somebody else writes a section and gets a credit, you don't want to have to go back and revise it.) Combined on the one hand with having started your career with the assumption that somebody else (your advisor) was going to be listed as an author whether or not he actually did anything and on the other hand with it feeling immodest to take complete credit since after all there were people who helped you run your experiments and who made suggestions that pushed you in the right direction. >> the "nursing 'we'" (second person singular): "And how are we >> feeling this morning?", >> > And third person, usually singular. That's the one that means my > dog. "We're feeling arthritic but cheerful." Come to think of it, > that's me too. My doggie, myself. Oh, yeah. Refers to people, too. >> and the "political 'we'" (second person plural): "We're going to >> have to tighten our belts." >> > Ah, the We Divine. The opposite, in a way, of the Nurse's We. The > unmoved mover is a very grand personage indeed. Almost a Doctor. I was thinking more of "those people over there" or, occasionally, "everybody but us". > Once you get started, they multiply wildly. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell |you. (If you're not that certain, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.) (650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > In article <hluqno$68...@news.eternal-september.org>, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the "political 'we'" (second person plural): "We're going to have to > tighten our belts." And "'we' the sports team" (third-person plural), as in "We're going to win the Super Bowl this year". -- Jerry Friedman Masa filted: >"We is collectively speaking," he explains. "We as in us good guys. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I couldn't get the usage of "collectively speaking" clearly. The author needs to learn how to use internal quotes: "'We' is collectively speaking," he explains. "'We' as in 'us good guys'." ....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.