Talk:Pluralis majestatis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isn't it also refered to as the 'Majestic We'?
In the first sentence: "[...]in reference to one individual her-, him-, or itself alone." I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. "Itself"? I can only imagine that this sentence was driven to obscurity by political correctness rum amok. At any rate, I've changed it to something simpler.
Please delete the page Unwritten article.
This is not PM:
- Are we having a problem, Dave? HAL 9000
HAL is clearly referring to the mission and the crew. --Eloquence
I'm not sure it's difficult to decide wheter it's PM or not without close examination of the context. But even if it's PM, that makes it a bad example that should be removed. Ericd
As for clearly referring to
- Can you please Template:Make:Wikipedia:explain|how you suppose whether and how HAL9000 had been able to distinguish the mission and the crew from Template:HAL9000:HAL9000 at all?
- Thanks, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 5, 2003
- p.s.
- Except for the wonderous quote and the referenced article itself I'm totally out of my depth here -- must have slept through Template:2001 / 2003rds of the main cinematographic reference.
Fwappler, please read Wikipedia:How does one edit a page. Your syntax is confused.
Moved here:
-
- May He go. I have no use for Him. Prince-Archbishop Count Colloredo
Does this really exist? Google returns no hits. --Eloquence
As for Does this really exist?
- Hieronymus Colloredo and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are presently recognized as historical figures.
- The (in)famous quote really exists only as Translation from their authorized German
Mag Er geh'n, Ich brauch' Ihn nicht!
On review, I view the translation
May He Leave, I'll miss Him not!
considerably better than the one suggested before, in terms of syllable count, as well as sociolinguistic balance and Gist; while preserving the instruction.
- I seemed to recall this particular name, even especially in connection with this particular example. I may be wrong about my recollection of names; therefore
- let me express explicitly what's really to recognized and named:
- (Therefore also the conjugate relation to Pluralis Majestatis, where one individual presumes to speak for many.)
- I'll provide Talk:sociolinguistics with this instruction on how to evaluate the name to be assigned.
As for Google returns no hits.
- All too true. Thank goodness for Wikipedia:Wikipedia.
Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 5, 16:12 PST.
- The ones we like, we keep. This one ... displeases us.
When and where did Phil Hartman say that?
I removed it as no source has been provided. --Eloquence 16:38 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
As for When and where did Phil Hartman say that?
- As indicated already, the phrase was apparently uttered by Phil Hartman really only acting as Bill McNeal; namely, as the referenced article expresses, portraying that character as a radio news man in the NBC Sitcom NewsRadio. Since the latter article presently doesn't reference the scripts of all episodes in which Bill McNeal participated, I can only offer that I seem to recall him handle several WalkingCanes and possibly one or more Top Hats during this occurance.
- Surely Talk:NewsRadio will be able to assist Us ?!
As for removed it as no source has been provided
- As instructed by the sequence of older versions, the reference I had provided initially (as above, and for example as given to George Louis Costanza of Seinfeld), had been destroyed by Tarquin, leaving you to miss it entirely.
Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 5, 18:48 PST.
-
- He says "this one displeases me" in that episode. Someone was tossing him walking canes offscreen (no top hats). There is no "we". My reference is me, watching the episode, ten seconds ago. Adam Bishop 00:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed:
- Our time has come! Austin's SheBots
Who or what is Austin's SheBots? --Eloquence
Fwappler -- I removed "[[Phil Hartman|Bill McNeal]]" because it was a hidden link I dind't understand. The reader sees one name but is taken to another. If it's an actor playing a part, then IMO give the name of the character and the programme they played in, eg "Clark Kent in Superman" -- and link the programme. -- Tarquin
As for [...] a hidden link I didn't understand. The reader sees one name but is taken to another.
- I understand now that if the reader "looks up" one name but is taken to another, then the distinction for instance between "[[Phil Hartman:acting as|Bill McNeal]]" and "[[time:portrayed by|duration]]" appears almost irretrievably concealed. Surely We wouldn't want that -- thanks for the lesson.
As for If it's an actor playing a part, then [...] Clark Kent inSuperman-- and link the programme
- Great, Let's admit some prepositions ... this ought to characterize links quite distinctly as
- either A is residing in, resulting from, seen of B,
- or else A is contributing to, aiming at, viewed by B.
- Provided this remains established, it should also
- eliminate the need to link George Louis Costanza of Seinfeld at Seinfeld itself, and
- provide a gentle transition if the addressee of the singularis subordinatus in question turned out to be "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart of Mozart" rather than "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (presumed of Wikipedia)".
- Now, just how does Disambiguation figure ... (and Copyright &) ...
- Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 6, 3:53 PST.
Well OF COURSE don't link Seinfeld back to Seinfeld. What on earth is "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (presumed of Wikipedia)"? You are not making much sense. -- Tarquin 19:33 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)
Royal we redirects to We, not to this article. The We article also contains a section on royal and editorial wes. Is there a good reason for this article's continued existence separately from We? -- Kimiko 14:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Pluralis modestiae?
I can guess what this phrase means from context and cognates...but I have never heard/read any examples. Could someone please supply a few? --Ingeborg S. Nordén 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- There are already some there... --Ω 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
