Re: 1st person plural we and its forms

On Friday 12 July 2002 17:24, Jake X wrote:
> OK, so has anyone noticed the multiple meanings of we? All the other
> pronoun slots seem to be pretty clear in who they can include, but English
> we can also include the adressed person(s) 2nd singular or plural. Does any
> lang make the distinction?
        As a matter of fact, many languages make a distinction between "inclusive we"
and "exclusive we." It's a great distinction, but can get a little tricky in
large group situations, in which some members of the group are "included" and
others are "excluded." For instance, if you are at a party and half the group
wants pizza and the other half wants Chinese, do you state "We(i) want pizza"
or "We(e) want pizza"? Of course, every language will have different rules
regarding usage, and of course context matters. I suppose (although I have
never heard of it) a language could have a third form of "we" (perhaps just
generic?) to handle situations in which you cannot or wish not to make a
distinction.

> For example, if I were to say to Bill Clinton, "We've got to stay faithful
> to our wives," I'd be referring to my wife and Bill's wife, not any other
> unnamed wife. (even though I'm single and gay, but it's just an example) So
> it includes the "you" person.
        This would be "inclusive we."

> But if some telemarketer calls on the phone, and I say, "We're not
> interested," clearly I am NOT including the telemarketer in the
> uninterested classification, but am including the wife (who is albeit
> unexistant.) How do you treat the discrepency?
        This would be "exclusive we."
        And yes, Enamyn makes a distinction between inclusive and exclusive forms. In
ambiguous situations, the general rule is to be inclusive, except when that
would be too offensive. However, usage of the inclusive form requires extra
politeness (which I have not gotten around to dreaming up) because the
speaker is aware that not all members that are included may desire to be
included. Or something like that.
        :Peter

Reply