Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 119 



•choose to overlook the mutual differences between group-mem- 

 bers; if you are content to conceive those members as merely 

 so many animals ; the group becomes at once undifferentiated, 

 homogeneous, and accordingly a plural. But this plural is by 

 no means that multiple. Original differentiated constituents 

 bave been discarded ; others undifferentiated have been substi- 

 tuted. The fact that the substitutes form a plural does not 

 ■even suggest that their originals do the same. 



The case of ^Sve'' is closely parallel. This appears most 

 plainly when ^Sve," as recognized by Grammar, has the value 

 of "he, thou and I.'' The persons designated form indeed a 

 multiple group, but one by no means plural. By modification 

 they may no doubt become a plural. Thus, if you overlook the 

 mutual distinctions of "I,'' "thou" and "he" (as speaker, hearer, 

 •and overhearer), and merely conceiv^e the three as so many 

 colloquial participants, ideas named, being now undifferentiated 

 and accordingly homogeneous, form no doubt a plural gToup. 

 But, in this case also, original group-members have beeen dis- 

 carded; others very different have been substituted. The fact 

 that the substitutes form a plural offers not even a hint that 

 their originals do the same.-^ 



Again, were "we" a plural, it could not be the plural of 

 ■^^I." To illustrate, speaking of the soldiers' voting in the early 

 sixties, I might say that "The regiment voted mainly for Lin- 

 coln." It is plain that "regiment" stands in this sentence rather 

 for a number of individuals than for their total conceived as 

 a unit; that is, "The regiment" names a group. Suppose it 

 now to be claimed that "regiment" is the plural of a particular 

 captain. It would be difficult to show why this particular cap- 

 tain should be preferred to any other captain, or to some other 

 officer, or even to a private. Yet, as the regiment does contain a 

 number of captains, such a claim might be tolerated ; for it does 

 not, at least, insult the quantitative instinct. But were it 



^In other words "we" can become a plural only by losing the meaning of "he, 

 thou and I," and assuming the meaning of "three undifferentiated speech-par- 

 ticipants." That "we" might do exactly this, I regard as neither impossible nor 

 «.bsurd. But, as a matter of fact, I believe that even a "thou" and a "he," as 

 ■constituent factors of a "we," maintain their mutual differentiation — to a degree 

 at least much greater than two "hes" or two "thous" in a "we" consisting, say, 

 •of five persons : e. g., myself, two Smiths addressed and two Robinsons not ad* 

 "dressed. 



