What did you want to be when you were little?

[Bianca Fransen]

Well, since I did not see his e-mail in the 20 minutes between his sending it and dissappearing completely from this forum.. IT WASN'T ME . Spooks me a bit though.. Can I be deleted too?

[Koa]

Maybe he deleted himself... it was him who edited his messages...

[Taliesin]

We wanted to be a writer.
All the other boys in the kindergarten wanted to be policemen or athletes but we wanted to be a writer.

[Bianca Fransen]

We wanted to be a writer.
All the other boys in the kindergarten wanted to be policemen or athletes but we wanted to be a writer.

We.. as in 'you, yourself and your brilliant talent' ? As in 'Mr. Jekyll and Hide and me'? Or just plain, boring you and your friends? Enlighten me, you make me curious..

[mono]

We.. as in 'you, yourself and your brilliant talent' ? As in 'Mr. Jekyll and Hide and me'? Or just plain, boring you and your friends? Enlighten me, you make me curious..

No, Taliesin merely insists on referring to himself (or "themselves") in the third-person perspective. Where it originated, I have no idea (I think before I even joined the forum), but I have always found it especially amusing.

[Jack_Aubrey]

I wanted to be a neuro-surgeon when I was little.

[Basil]

No, Taliesin merely insists on referring to himself (or "themselves") in the third-person perspective.

Is 'we' considered third-person?

[mono]

Is 'we' considered third-person?

Oops, silly me, I must not have thought clearly while typing the post.
No, rhetoricians do not consider 'we' termed as the third-person perspective, but a first-person plural. If you realized my mistake, I would have hoped you could correct me, rather than asking, but thank you for noticing the mistake.

[Basil]

If you realized my mistake, I would have hoped you could correct me, rather than asking

I'm not sure I understand the difference, but ok: I will correct your future mistakes with simple declarative statements.

No, rhetoricians do not consider 'we' termed as the third-person perspective, but a first-person plural.

Your statement suggests that only rhetoricians consider 'we' to be a first-person plural pronoun. This is incorrect: everybody considers the pronoun 'we' to be first-person plural. That is to say, your statement would be deemed incorrect universally; not just by rhetoricians.

[mono]

Your statement suggests that only rhetoricians consider 'we' to be a first-person plural pronoun. This is incorrect: everybody considers the pronoun 'we' to be first-person plural. That is to say, your statement would be deemed incorrect universally; not just by rhetoricians.

I apologize, Basil, as I have no intention of arguing, nor offending you.
Language, though having a specific part of the human brain for understanding (Wernicke's area) and forming it (Broca's area), does not prove as "universal," but, in fact, imaginary, imagined and organized by whatever culture developed the first expressive grunt and groan, but perfected by linguists, rhetoricians, writers, and etymologists (if I may, I recommend reading Simon Winchester's The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of The Oxford English Dictionary).
Calling the rhetorical 'rules and regulations' of a language universal, I think, assumes that possible aliens in outerspace speak English, and would never mistake a third-person perspective from a first-person plural, when far from everyone on our planet speaks perfect English (including native English speakers, like myself). This seems what separates language as universal from something imaginary - the tree grew before humans called it a tree.
Again, I do not intend on angering or confronting anyone, but merely desired to correct, what I thought, a linguistic mistake, and would prefer to no longer deviate from the purpose of this thread.

[Bianca Fransen]

No, Taliesin merely insists on referring to himself (or "themselves") in the [first-person plural] perspective. Where it originated, I have no idea (I think before I even joined the forum), but I have always found it especially amusing.

It reminds me of a style in a novel - I cannot remember which one, but I find it a charming choice of style . I just thought it had extra meaning concerning this thread, which explains my question.
It also reminds me a bit of a boy in my class who always called himself 'Daniel' and 'he'. Other kids had to explain to me that he was talking about himself. First I thought he had a best friend he could not stop talking about..

[amuse]

*whispers
i thought he (Basil) meant to be funny?

[Sirius_Kai]

I actually wanted to be both a doctor and a lawyer. My reason at that time was that I could then represent myself in a malpractice case. LOL I still want to be in law, just law enforcement instead.

[Pensive]

I have always wanted to be a Professor. When I was little I wanted to be a English Professer but now I want to be a Professor of Chemistry or perhaps Zology.
I also dont mind giving free lectures on anything
Want a free lucture or wanna ask something from your professor? lol

[Sitaram]

I have always wanted to be a Professor. When I was little I wanted to be a English Professer but now I want to be a Professor of Chemistry or perhaps Zology.
I also dont mind giving free lectures on anything
Want a free lucture or wanna ask something from your professor? lol

Something tells me you shall be quite successful! I see this in your essential nature. For someone so very young, you have an wonderful, inquiring mind. I was truly amazed when I first made your acquaintance, and count myself fortunate. I genuinely believe it is possible for you to one day make this world a slightly different, better place.