One for the grammar police!

[rbh]

When you talk with someone as a rep for your business and you use "WE" instead of "I", and they ask you who is "WE", am I not referring to the company instead of myself?

If I ran the question through other people, not just myself, employees, wife, ETC

We think the best option is?

I think the best option is?

 

[tpenfield]

Re: One for the grammar police!

What 'WE' talking about ???

 

[nlain]

Re: One for the grammar police!

My thoughts are, "WE" the company manufacture products, provide services, etc. "I" as the rep can do this for you, help you get what you need, etc.

 

[dingbat]

Re: One for the grammar police!

We" and "I" are personal nouns. "I" is the singular form. "We" is the plural. "You" are not the company (plural). When addressing someone as an individual you use the singular form, I.

"We" would imply that you are speaking for multiple people. In that case, who?

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: One for the grammar police!

We" and "I" are personal nouns. "I" is the singular form. "We" is the plural. "You" are not the company (plural). When addressing someone as an individual you use the singular form, I.

"We" would imply that you are speaking for multiple people. In that case, who?

1) They are personal PROnouns.
2) So should it be " 'You'is not the company (singular) " ?
3) ....in that case for WHOM.

Given Mark Twain's observance on this topic..."The only people who should refer to themselves as "we" are Royalty and those with tapeworms...." ....and I don't think OP is an Earl... I'd suggest "I" works just fine.

 

[TilliamWe]

Re: One for the grammar police!

...

If I ran the question through other people, not just myself, employees, wife, ETC

Now there are two for the Grammar Police.

Actually three, since "grammar police" in your title should have been capitalized.

The others have answered your first question. You're welcome for the additional help.

 

[pdgs]

Re: One for the grammar police!

When speaking on behalf of the company that your are employed by the term "We" or "I" implies the company and not yourself but only in matters that are related specifically to the business of the company. For instance, if you say "We like boats" and the conversation is about selling widgets for the company it would be correct to assume that you and your near relatives like boats but not necesscarily the company unless you specifically said "We at this company, like boats". If you said "We warranty or I warranty our widgets it would be implied as the companies policy and not your personal guarantee.

 

[lncoop]

Re: One for the grammar police!

I beg to differ, gentlemen. In the strictest sense I is the appropriate pronoun. However, the strictly appropriate approach fails to account for context and connotation. Rob's use of we rather than I must be considered within the context of marketing his company's services. In this case the plural subjective pronoun is used to connote the greater power to please than that which is engendered in the singular subjective, e.g., "If there is a problem we will take care of it". If you were Rob's customer which would you prefer; his sole efforts toward a resolution, or the collective might of his company's? I maintain that his use of we rather than I conveys the message that "I am indeed the face of we, but we have your back at all times". Were I a custy I'd dig that. Just sayin'.

 

[Tail_Gunner]

Re: One for the grammar police!

When you talk with someone as a rep for your business and you use "WE" instead of "I", and they ask you who is "WE", am I not referring to the company instead of myself?

If I ran the question through other people, not just myself, employees, wife, ETC

We think the best option is?

I think the best option is?

When you stated we to a prospective rep you are including him under the umbrella of your company aka WE as one company..it creates a emotion aka WE go forward from here..The Team all inclusive

I indicates creates a seperation..distancing there is you then there is me. While some prefer this as a way of distingushing atomity it does create a divide.

I just terminated a 7 yr employment from a i guy...yes he was generous with compensation but when this business enviroment turned sour and my compensation was lowered although producity stayed the same in my case..I termed the relationship i knew he came first and there was no loyalty to myself nor did i feel any to him.

Had he been inclusive and better relation's fostered i would have felt a certain involvement and responsiblity..Word's are a powerful medium but you have to be true to yourself people can reconize honest emotion's.

As to correct grammar...Watch for JB that is without a doubt his fortay.

 

[rbh]

Re: One for the grammar police!

I knew I could count on you gentlemen for great advise and some chuckles.

Thanks


Now bring on JBs words of wisdom

 

[WIMUSKY]

Re: One for the grammar police!

A little pet peeve of mine. You walk into a store, I'll use an auto parts store as an example, you can't find something on the shelf. You inquire with one of the employees. They say, "Let me see if "I" have it in back". What? Since when did you own the store? A lot of employees of businesses say it. Drives me nuts and makes me chuckle........... I'm far from being a member of the grammar police, but still.......

 

[Grandad]

Re: One for the grammar police!

When you talk with someone as a rep for your business and you use "WE" instead of "I", and they ask you who is "WE", am I not referring to the company instead of myself? If I ran the question through other people, not just myself, employees, wife, ETC We think the best option is? I think the best option is?

Without getting too grammatical, I agree with your assumption that as a representative of a company using "we" means the entire company. That said, if you answered my question with a company policy answer that I didn't like, I might ask you who "we" is so that I could more directly register my disagreement with "we" personally. - Grandad

 

[southkogs]

Re: One for the grammar police!

I would have used "we" as well. It does carry more weight as representation of entire organization. If you're a sole proprietor, and a one-man show, I would probably be more appropriate though.


On the flip side ... it does make a good argument for the words, we-uns and y'all.

 

[BTMCB]

Re: One for the grammar police!

Whose on first?

 

[QC]

Re: One for the grammar police!

Were I a custy I'd dig that. Just sayin'.

Everything made perfect sense until these two sentences. Can you elaborate? We is confused.

Funny thing I deal with in the UK. They say "Ford are interested in this", or "Daimler like our approach." Frankly, I think they use it correctly. The Company is plural, just like . . . we.

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: One for the grammar police!

Everything made perfect sense until these two sentences. Can you elaborate? We is confused.

Funny thing I deal with in the UK. They say "Ford are interested in this", or "Daimler like our approach." Frankly, I think they use it correctly. The Company is plural, just like . . . we.

I have a feeling that we are just trying to pick the fly poop out of the pepper.

If you are thinking in plural terms, wouldn't using plural conjugation be correct?

If you were to speak about the Democrats, you would probably say "the Democrats are"..... if you were talking about the Democratic Party, probably "the Democratic Party is....".
Same folks either way....

 

[QC]

Re: One for the grammar police!

I would contend that no matter how we is thinking, in the US, I would never say "Ford are" . . . I guess like this I would: "the guys at Ford are" doing whatever. But never "Ford are making a new car." In the UK, and Australia, company names are always treated as plural.

 

[lncoop]

Re: One for the grammar police!

Everything made perfect sense until these two sentences. Can you elaborate? We is confused.

Funny thing I deal with in the UK. They say "Ford are interested in this", or "Daimler like our approach." Frankly, I think they use it correctly. The Company is plural, just like . . . we.

If'n I was a customer I'd prefer we to I in this case. Don't know how else to say "just sayin'".

 

[LongLine]

Re: One for the grammar police!

"We" would mean your refering to the company. "I" would mean reference to your personal opinion or what'd you'd as an individual would do - personally. Unless of course you refering to yourelf as a trio. i.e Me, myself & I.

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: One for the grammar police!

I would contend that no matter how we is thinking, in the US, I would never say "Ford are" . . . I guess like this I would: "the guys at Ford are" doing whatever. But never "Ford are making a new car." In the UK, and Australia, company names are always treated as plural.

Up here it is ~ 50/50. To be honest, neither sounds odd to me.