linguoboy wrote:Surprise! I'm gonna disagree with you again, dEhiN.
I'm actually not surprised, though I was hoping I could offer one correction without us disagreeing!
linguoboy wrote:"We" refers to the speaker ("me") and whoever accompanied them. The clause is absolutely correct and idiomatic as written. If you referred to yourself and one or more people accompanying you as "they" in conversation, you would confuse the hell out of me.
See I think you and I read Osias's sentence differently, at least semantically*. I didn't read what he wrote as to include him, thus making it a plural subject. All the TPAM statements I've seen (in English or any language) have used the subsequent poster as the subject - either in 3rd person singular or plural, if another 3rd person subject is added. And if the original poster of the TPAM statement includes him/herself in the statement, it's been as the object. Thus, pragmatically*, I assumed Osias was making the subject 3rd person, in which case "we" would be wrong.
*I'm pretty sure I used semantically and pragmatically in the correct usages, although I've been known to mix up those two and syntactically. Also, you know linguoboy, you don't have to disagree with me all the time. You could just offer another point of view as a native speaker with a different dialect than mine. Disagreeing implies that you think what I wrote is wrong, which perhaps you meant to imply. However, I am a native speaker of English, and though I haven't always phrased my corrections in a way that remembers or recognizes other dialects, I do know my dialect.