InModern English,we is aplural,first-personpronoun.
InStandard Modern English,we has six distinct shapes for five wordforms:[1]
There is also a distinctdeterminerwe as inwe humans aren't perfect,[1] which some people consider to be just an extended use of the pronoun.
We has been part of English sinceOld English, having come from Proto-Germanic *wejes, from PIE *we-.[3] Similarly,us was used in Old English as theaccusative anddative plural ofwe, from PIE *nes-.[4] The following table shows the old English first-person plural anddual pronouns:
| Plural | Dual | |
|---|---|---|
| Nominative | wē | wit |
| Accusative | ūs | unc |
| Dative | ūs | unc |
| Genitive | ūre | uncer |
By lateMiddle English, the dual form was lost, and the dative and accusative had merged.[5]: 117 Theours genitive can be seen as early as the 12th century.Ourselves replaced original constructionwe selfe,us selfum in the 15th century,[6] so that, by the century's end, the Middle English forms ofwe had solidified into those we use today.[5]: 120
We is not generally seen as participating in the system ofgender. In Old English, it did not. Only third-person pronouns had distinct masculine, feminine, and neuter gender forms.[5]: 117 But by the 17th century, that oldgender system, which also marked gender oncommon nouns andadjectives, had disappeared, leaving only pronoun marking. At the same time, a newrelative pronoun system was developing that eventually split betweenpersonal relativewho[7] and impersonal relativewhich.[8] This is seen as a new personal / non-personal (or impersonal) gender system.[1]: 1048 As a result,some scholars considerwe to belong to the personal gender, along withwho.[citation needed]
We can appear as asubject,object,determiner orpredicative complement.[1] The reflexive form also appears as anadjunct.
The contracted object form's is only possible after the speciallet oflet's do that.
Pronouns rarely takedependents, but it is possible forwe to have many of the same kind of dependents as othernoun phrases.
We'sreferents generally must include the speaker, along with otherpersons. A few exceptional cases, which includenosism, are presented below.We is alwaysdefinite andspecific.
The royalwe, or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis), is sometimes used by a person of high office, such as amonarch, earl, orpope. It has singular semantics.
The editorialwe is a similar phenomenon, in which aneditorialcolumnist in a newspaper or a similar commentator in another medium refers to themselves aswe when giving their opinion. Here, the writer casts themselves asspokesperson: either for the media institution who employs them or on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary.[9] The reference is not explicit but is generally consistent with a first-person plural.
The author'swe, orpluralism modesties, is a practice referring to a genericthird person aswe (instead ofone or the informalyou):
We in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author" because the author often assumes that the reader knows and agrees with certain principles or previous theorems for the sake of brevity (or, if not, the reader is prompted to look them up).[citation needed] This practice is discouraged by some academic style guides because it fails to distinguish between sole authorship and co-authorship.[10][11][12][13] Again, the reference is not explicit, but is generally consistent withfirst-person plural.
Some languages distinguish between inclusivewe, which includes both the speaker and the addressee(s), and exclusivewe, which excludes the addressee(s). English does not make this distinction grammatically, thoughwe can have both inclusive and exclusive semantics.
Imperativelet's orlet us allowsimperatives to be inclusive.[1]: 925 Compare:
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(July 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
We is used sometimes in place ofyou to address a second party: A doctor may ask a patient: "And how are we feeling today?". A waiter may ask a client: "What are we in the mood for?"
 | This sectionpossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(July 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The membershipwe is a simultaneous reference to the individual, and to the collective of which the individual is a member. If ants or hive bees could use English, they might use the pronounwe almost exclusively. Human cultures can be categorized as communal or individualist;[14] the membershipwe aligns more with a communal culture. The speaker, or thinker, expresses ideas with awareness of both themselves and the collective of other members. If language constrains or liberates thinking, then using the membershipwe may impact our ability to understand, empathize, and bond with others. The extent of inclusion when using the membershipwe is loosely definite; the group may be others of the same village, nation, species, or planet. The following two examples show how meaning changes subtly depending on whetherI orwe is used. When using the membershipwe, the reader or speaker is automatically drawn into the collective, and the change in viewpoint is significant:
