Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 10:20 am
Walker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:09 am
GRAMMARIST
https://grammarist.com/usage/royal-we/# ... wn%20power
“The
royal 'we' is simply the use of the plural pronoun we in place of the singular pronoun “I”. This quirk of English grammar is rarely heard today, except in historical context or as a jibe at someone who is too assured of his own power.”
So, as it was "atla" who USED the 'we' word above here, which was 'what' was in question, are 'you' here now suggesting that when "atla" was USING that word in reference to "atla", and some, or EVERY, one "else", then it is 'them' who ARE too assured of "themselves?
The way I figure that definition, back when The Royal We was in use, the only two who could use it with authenticity were the King and the Queen.
So, anyone else who used it was being just a bit too assured of their own power by equating their power to the king or the queen, which ever of the two monarchs was calling the shots at the time.
So, if you were in the company of one delusionally assured of their own power, then in order to take a jibe at the delusion, you too would adopt the Royal We.
I think this is the kindest interpretation. Why? Because, then you two are on the same side and by adopting the same foible with voice energy, whether or not you believe in it, then you too have adopted any resulting karma to be shared.
Has atla displayed a pattern of anachronisms? I do sometimes.
So, what's the Age assessment?
I wouldn't bothering asking the source (atla) because folks say all kinds of things about motive and cause, when mired in retrospect.