Re: [OT] Earthquake in New Zealand

In article <5t0p0bF1bletmU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fkf4i8$npj$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <5t0il0F1bc9h7U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fke4bq$84i$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Might be some communications difficulties from that part of the world;
according to

<http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/20/newzealand.quake/index.html?eref=ib_topstories>
the force was 6.6 - 6.8 Richter.

Hope all goes well with folks.

[snip]

Anyway, no one was hurt and we are all fine :-)

Plural majestatus est, Mr Dashwood...

Not in this instance. I was not speaking for myself, but for the whole
population of NZ. (emphasised by all).

I didn't know you were elected spokesman, Mr Dashwood, it must have been
later in the broadcast... but congratulations on your new job!

This is NOT a use of the "Royal We"
because I know of no other use in Standard English whereby one can refer to
a group which includes onself, WITHOUT using "we" or "us".

Third person plural is how that is done, usually; the question is what
causes one to speak for others than one'sself.


Perhaps you need to review your automatic response system?

All right... there, done, unless one is a recognised spokesperson for a
group then speaking for that group does not seem to be done on a
recognised basis... hence one is making Assumptions of Royalty.


thanks much for the response.

You're very welcome.

Please, no need to mention it.

DD

.