120 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, ArtSj and Letters. 



claimed that the regiment is plural of its colonel, a halt would 

 surely he called, on the ground that a plural of colonel must 

 contain more colonels than one. 



So, too, were it claimed that "we" is a plural of "thou" or 

 of "he," it might indeed be hard to see why it is more a plural 

 of one than the other. Yet the claim might sometimes have 

 a quasi plausibility; for sometimes a "we" contains more than 

 one "he" or more than one "thou." But when summoned to ac- 

 cept the doctrine that "we" is the plural of ^'I," the powers 

 of faith are overtaxed. For the idea named by "I," is from the 

 user's view-point, absolutely unique. A plural of self is ac- 

 cordingly a mystery even more difficult than that of the Trinity. 

 There simply cannot be a plural (that is, many) of that of 

 which there is but one. The triumvirate is not the plural of 

 Antony ; nor the ox, of his lights, pluck, or liver ; nor the regi- 

 ment, of its colonel ; nor United States, of Wisconsin ; also "we" 

 is not the plural of "I."^ 



To redefine the "we" is by no means easy for one embarrassed 

 still by mental habits formed in a long acceptance of false teach- 

 ing. The scope of the word, moreover, in literal and figurative 

 use, is so wide and varied, that the danger of an oversight is 

 extreme. I therefore make a tentative effort only, in venturing 

 to define the "we" as the name of any group in which the "I" 

 is a member. 



In the case of "you," I neglect the vagaries of colloquial eti- 

 quette, which make even a single "thou" appear in various lan- 

 guages either as singular or as plural — of the third as well as the 

 second person. Considered in its normal value and in rela- 

 tion to a normal "thou," the "you" may be defined as naming 

 any group including "thou" but not including "I." 



The use of "they" is even further restricted, the word (in 

 its now considered value) being definable as the name of any 

 group including the colloquial "he" ("she" or "it"), but not in- 

 cluding "I" or "thou." 



^ Since reaching this view I find it adopted by Kern and one or more others. 

 In further illustration, compare the procedure of Grammar with that of the ex- 

 military mendicant, who invites charity by a placard inscribed as follows : Bat- 

 tles 4, wounds 5, children 6 ; total 15." 



