The plural of first-person I is not We.
We shall argue about the plural nature of the word we from a number of standpoints. Writing these very words, we will point out to you, first, that we are employing the Technicality Defense—I (yes, I) have so far been employing “the editorial we,” synonymous with I, so thus far the word we is representing the singular first person. This is also known as “the royal we,” and when editors use “the editorial we,” writers refer to it ultimately as “the royal-pain we.”
Then, we move to the I-Defer-to-a-More-Articulate-Wag Defense, turning to Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary: “In grammar [I] is a pronoun of the first person and singular number. Its plural is said to be We, but how there can be more than one myself is doubtless clearer to the grammarians than it is to the author of this incomparable dictionary. Conception of two myselfs is difficult, but fine.” If Bierce says such a thing about language, we are inclined to sometimes agree, but always be edified.
Then, from the technicalities to the technical. We is not the plural of I, which is the basis of Bierce’s quippery. We is a first- person pronoun indicating that the object is plural, inclusive of the speaker and at least one other in the speaker’s “group.” This is a technical distinction, made even more difficult to envision because the word I takes singular verb forms (I think, therefore I am), while the word we takes the plural (We think, therefore we are).
So, technically, we is defined as “the pronoun of the first person plural nominative.” And here we will offer something to further consider: Shouldn’t we instead be defined as a “pronoun of the first persons” ?
4 2
Bill Brohaugh