Pirin wrote:เป็นคำถามที่ดีมากค่ะ
You might have read this conversation:
http://www.thai-language.com/forums/t/t ... nced/t7054.
In “การที่เรารักใครซักคน ถ้าคนนั้นบอกเราว่า...เหนื่อยก็พัก แปลว่า เค้าไม่คิดจะทำให้เราหายเหนื่อย หรือเปลี่ยนแปลง แต่...เขาคิดว่าเราควร จบที่เค้าและไปเจอคนที่ไม่ทำให้เราเหนื่อย เท่ากับว่า ความรักของเขา คือ...การที่เราต้องทำใจยอมรับ ผลที่ออกมา คือ....อยู่ได้ก็อยู่ ทนได้ก็ทน ทนไม่ไหว.....ก็ไปซะ”, "เรา" can be 'we', 'you' or 'one'. It does depend on context.
I agree. Furthermore, it seems to me that the ambiguity in Thai is no greater than "you" in English which is a pronoun used in both for singular and plural contexts.
Even "we" in English has multiple uses, in addition to its familiar nominative first person plural:
"A nosism is the use of 'we' to refer to oneself.[1]
Majestic plural
A common example is the royal we (Pluralis Majestatis), which is a nosism employed by a person of high office, such as a monarch, earl or pope. It is also used in certain formal contexts by bishops and university rectors. According to legend, the expression was first used in 1169 when the English King Henry II (d. 1189), hard pressed by his barons over an investiture controversy, used the word "we" to mean "God and I..." By reminding his audience that the monarch acted conjointly with the deity, he reasserted his claim to be the ruler by "divine right". (See Rolls Series, 2.12)
In the public situations in which it is used, the monarch or other dignitary is typically speaking, not in his own proper person, but as leader of a nation or institution. Nevertheless, the habit of referring to leaders in the plural has influenced the grammar of several languages, in which plural forms tend to be perceived as deferential and more polite than singular forms. This grammatical feature is called a T-V distinction.
The editorial "we"
The editorial we is a similar phenomenon, in which editorial columnists in newspapers and similar commentators in other media refer to themselves as we when giving their opinions. Here, the writer has once more cast himself or herself in the role of spokesman: either for the media institution who employs him, or more generally on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary.
The author's "we"
Similar to the editorial we is the practice common in scientific literature of referring to a generic third person by we (instead of the more common one or the informal you):
By adding three and five, we obtain eight.
We are thus led also to a definition of "time" in physics. — Albert Einstein
"We" in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author", since the author often assumes that the reader knows certain principles or previous theorems for the sake of brevity (or, if not, the reader is prompted to look them up), for example, so that the author does not need to explicitly write out every step of a mathematical proof."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We