Language desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 17[edit]

Why do people use "we" to refer to the human species instead of using third person?[edit]

I have a problem with using "we". "We" may mean "you and I". "We" may mean "my friends and I". "We" may also mean "My people and I". Because "we" is a pronoun for so many things, why do people (professors, students, documentary presenters, anybody really) use "we" when they talk about the Homo sapiens species? Do people use "we" when they talk about Homo erectus or Australopithecus afarensis? In a similar scenario, I find many Christians have a similar vocabulary. Instead of using "Christians" or the name of a specific denomination, they would use "we", and then all of a sudden, I'd get the impression that "we" includes me. There was one time when I met a Catholic missionary, which gave me the opportunity to learn about Catholicism from one man's perspective. He seemed different. Instead of using "we", he used "Catholics", which then gave me the impression that God only interacted with Catholics and cared about no one else. So, anyway, what's the point of using "we" to refer to the human species? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are your professors not Homo Sapiens? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Because the speaker is included in the antecedent. In English, "we" is used as a pronoun whenever the antecedent includes the speaker. In this case, as far as I know, there are no sapient species speaking English other than human beings, so anyone speaking English would always include themselves in the concept of "homo sapiens". Thus, "we" is perfectly grammatically correct. --Jayron 32 03:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Had Alex the parrot used we, that would have been creepy. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'We' means anyone of a group of people or animals - not necessarily all of them as homo sapiens - that includes the speaker. "I took my dog to the beach and we had some fun" is perfectly normal. In some languages, such as Malay, they have inclusive and exclusive plural 1st person pronouns - in this case 'kami' and 'kita', which mean, respectively 'me and other people but not you', and 'me and you (and possibly other people)'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article is Clusivity (though I'm not too sure that's a standard linguistic term)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question is quite interesting, because when talking about historical things, for example, we can say "We didn't reach Berlin before the Russians did," even if the speaker was not even alive in 1945. In this case, the speaker is including himself in a group of people (here, the Western Allies) imaginarily. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Mitchell & Webb's take on the subject. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example! KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same at football fans saying "We lost". --14:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Basic words like we, they, us, them, etc. Are very flexible in their usage. About the only thing you can be fairly sure of is that when someone says "we", they are likely including themselves - and if "they", likely not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We tortured and droned people. (No, I didn't. Stop implying I had anything to do with it.) --Bowlhover (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself. Are you telling yourself not to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was countering your claim that "when someone says 'we', they are likely including themselves". --Bowlhover (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We" Americans do a lot of things that not all individuals necessarily do, but you're still part of that "we". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I can say "we" defeated the Nazis in WWII, even though "I" was not born yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf wasn't that bad. After all, he did kill Hitler.... 'We' didn't. :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean when an old, unattractive man is perceived to be "cute" by young teenagers?[edit]

Occasionally, the use of the word "cute" can be used in seemingly bizarre places. Such instances involve the use of "cute" to refer to an old, unattractive man or other rather unattractive beings. If "cuteness" is supposed to connote physical attractiveness, childishness, or youth, then how did the connotation of unattractive objects evolve? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Cute' is a word with multiple shades of meaning - it clearly doesn't simply connote physical attractiveness. It seems to originally have meant 'clever' [1][2][3] and is sometimes still used in that sense. As for what it means when used to describe 'unattractive beings', one needs to look at the context. Perhaps you could provide examples? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most common meanings of cute is "endearing". It is not necessarily about youth. (Though of course most people find infants and small children highly endearing.) It is certainly possible for an old man to be seen as endearing. Marco polo (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irony comes first to mind too. I mention irony because I hear it a lot in my country (France), amongst teenagers but also on the radio, without any sign that it should be taken with irony. As if irony had become sometimes the only possible way to say something, as it sounds to me sometimes, especially on the radio. To the point I often say to myself, "wow, some foreigner who is not fluent will not get that he should understand the opposite of what is said, and I find it quite unprofessional coming from a radio..." Akseli9 (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's an inherent flaw in your premise. Your finding someone unattractive is no guarantee that everyone else does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Marco on this one: "cute" in this sense is most likely used to mean "endearing" or "lovable" in a very non-amatory sense. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The American sense of the word 'cute' is very often reserved for sexually attractive girls, at least from what I have seen from nonsensical American TV programs and films (nonsensical to us Brits). In the UK, 'cute' does indeed mean only what the above respondents have said. In Japan, the word 'kawaii' - which I am sure everyone knows by now - also means exactly the same: 'loveable', and not necessarily sexually attractive. In Japan, the word can also be used for an old man who is indeed loveable, or even for a tiny mobile phone (and 'cute' in English can also be used in that way). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am American, and the word cute can have meanings other than "femininely attractive" in American English, as I've indicated above. American women and gay men certainly refer to attractive men as "cute", and there is another distinct range of meanings such as "endearing" and "adorable" that have nothing to do with sexual attraction. There are other less common meanings, but those probably aren't applicable to the old man. In response to Akseli9, American teenagers are also very capable of irony, but this doesn't sound like a case of irony. There could be an element of condescension, though. Hard to know without context. Marco polo (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a young Singaporean lady, quite petite, who objected strongly to being called "cute", because the dictionary definition (I don't know which dictionary) is supposedly "ugly but adorable". --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that most Singaporeans define it that way. --Antiquary (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience in science/math contexts in the USA, "cute" can sometimes mean something like "clever, surprising, unexpected yet correct" -- For example "that's a cute proof of the infinitude of primes, I hadn't seen that one before" SemanticMantis (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A WP article calls a species of snailfish "surprisingly cute". I wonder how long those "surprisingly cute" fish live. Probably longer than the "cutest" longest lived old man. Contact Basemetal here 03:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]