Jump to content

Nosism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A876 (talk | contribs) at 02:08, 21 March 2020 (closer to sync with [we#Nosism].). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nosism, from the Latin nos, "we", is the practice of using the pronoun "we" to refer to oneself when expressing a personal opinion.[1][2]

Depending on the person using the nosism, different uses can be distinguished:

Royal "we"

The royal "we", or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis), is employed by a person of high office, such as a monarch, bishop, or pope.

Editorial "we"

The editorial "we" is a similar phenomenon, in which an editorial columnist in a newspaper or a similar commentator in another medium refers to themself as we when giving their opinion. Here, the writer casts themself in the role of a spokesperson: either for the media institution that employs them, or on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary.[citation needed]

Author's "we"

The author's "we", or pluralis modestiae, is the practice common in mathematical and scientific literature of referring to a generic third person as we (instead of one or the informal you):

  • By adding four and five, we obtain nine.
  • We are thus led also to a definition of "time" in physics.Albert Einstein

"We" in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author", since the author often assumes that the reader knows and agrees with certain principles or previous theorems for the sake of brevity (or, if not, the reader is prompted to look them up).[citation needed]

This practice is discouraged in the social sciences because it fails to distinguish between sole authorship and co-authorship.[3]

See also

References

  1. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, Compact Edition, 1989, Page 1945
  2. ^ "A.Word.A.Day – nosism". Retrieved 11 January 2008.
  3. ^ Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4 ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 1994. p. 30. ISBN 1557982414.