Timeline for The opposite of the "Royal we"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2016 at 13:16 | comment | added | lly | Not sure why this is upvoted, but not enough rep to downvote yet. (Any help?) It describes something close to precisely opposite of what was being asked. | |
| Apr 25, 2016 at 12:44 | comment | added | Dave M | It's certainly a very similar case to the patronizing "we", although in this usage it's not meant to be patronizing. It does refer to much the same subset of the audience, though. | |
| Apr 25, 2016 at 12:36 | comment | added | deadrat | @DaveM In fact, doesn't it need to specifically include only the spoken to? This is somewhat different from the usage discussed here:english.stackexchange.com/questions/17964/… | |
| Apr 25, 2016 at 10:24 | comment | added | Dave M | I see where you're going with those but neither is quite right, as the term needs to specifically exclude the -speaker-. | |
| Apr 25, 2016 at 10:17 | history | answered | zzxjoanw | CC BY-SA 3.0 |