Timeline for "Royal we" agreement
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2017 at 11:56 | comment | added | bdsl | Yes we goes with 'are' because 'are' is the first person plural form of 'be'. I think 'be' is the only verb in English that has a different form for first person plural and first person singular. | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 22:33 | comment | added | fectin | Think of Leviathan. When a monarch speaks with "we", they are speaking with the voice of the entire nation. Just like you wouldn't say, "we constitute nations," you wouldn't use the plural for any other description. So, if "we" are anything, it's because the nation as a whole is that thing. Same distinction as all vs. each, really. | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 13:55 | comment | added | EL_DON | @Sneftel that should be the answer. | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 11:15 | comment | added | Sneftel | @EL_DON Correct. Compare "We are musicians" and "We are a band". The important thing is how many musicans there are (several) and how many bands there are (one), not agreement in grammatical number between the subject and object. | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 3:50 | vote | accept | Dog Lover | ||
| Apr 28, 2017 at 3:03 | comment | added | EL_DON | So in conclusion, "we" goes with "are", but doesn't cause other words to be pluralized in general? | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 1:24 | history | edited | herisson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 50 characters in body
|
| Apr 28, 2017 at 1:14 | history | edited | herisson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1208 characters in body
|
| Apr 28, 2017 at 0:54 | history | answered | herisson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |