Last week, after Ben Zimmer‘s New York Times “On Language” column discussed the distastefulnessof using the first-person plural, we defended our use of the word “we” in this blog. We didn’t have a name for our offense, but Zimmer, writing in his Word Routes blog has defined our crime:

Using we where I would suffice has been called nosism, after the Latin first-person plural pronoun nos. You won’t find that word in many dictionaries beyond the Oxford English Dictionary, since it’s archaic now and never was used much in the past. But I’m all for reviving the word to help name the we disease that continues to infect many written genres.

Despite this fresh attack upon the word, Zimmer was good enough to quote MobyLives and others seeking to justify the use of the “presumptuous” pronoun. Writes Carol Saller, The Subversive Copy-Editor:

“We” is a fine word with an honorable place in writing. It comes back to the idea of community that Zimmer mentions briefly, to the expression of ideas that a writer cannot rightly claim with an “I.”

However other publications, such as The Long Beach Press-Telegram, after years of criticism for their use of “we,” have finally bowed to the pressure:

Whatever solace we took in our imaginary plural pronoun pals was more than offset by the brickbats from people who don’t understand its genesis or see any of the inherent humor in using the editorial or royal “we.” It’s a funny pronoun. We’ll miss us.