Talk:Royal we

History tidied

It only contained some discussion of poor examples that had been removed, and lots of 'fwappling' about how to do links - it's all in this talk page's history if you have lots of time to waste ! Sorry, but 'Be Bold' is an accepted principle, even on article pages, let alone talk pages !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better Example ?

I would even consider removing "In agreement with the Imperial Duma We have thought it well ..." as possibly being genuine plural, (a bit like 'My husband and I' could lead Queen Elizabeth II to use 'we' as a real plural) or maybe just poor Russian -> English translation ? "We thought it Our duty of conscience to facilitate for Our people the closest union possible ..." may be a better example from the same reference.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Capitalisation is sometimes used to indicate PM - should that be mentioned in the article ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move: Pluralis majestatis → Majestic plural

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). FilipeS (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FilipeS (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pluralis MAIESTATIS, not maJestatis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.205.114.10 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both spellings are defensible. FilipeS (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:26

I'm curious as to whether this well-known text should be included as an early example of a majestic plural.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....

There is, after all, no office higher than "God." :)

The word translated in that passage as "God" is itself a plural, Elohim (אלהים). There is some tradition of a "grand plural" in Hebrew, but I am not enough of a linguist to go into it for this article. 72.49.66.68 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pine (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caesarean

I was taught as a child that the plural of majesty descended from the days of multiple Roman emperors: one emperor officially spoke for himself and his colleague(s), whether present or a thousand miles away. This practice was imitated by successors with other titles. It ought to be possible to document this.8-\ J S Ayer (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Needed

"In pluralis maiestatis a speaker refers to him or her self in other than the first person and may be implicitly using the third person plural for the plurality they represent. "

But "we" is first person--first person plural, to be exact, not third personal plural (which is "they" in English) as stated in the article. Bicoastalguy (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]