“‘If’ is a big word.” Growing up, I heard that aphorism early and often. For impact in a sentence, few words pack a bigger punch. But “if” is not the only biglyph to carry such a big burden.
“We”, too, is a big word. In fact, the little “we” possesses six distinct meanings. Three meanings per letter places the term in the major leagues of meaningfulness.
First, there is the exclusive “we”, that is, me and others, but not you. “We don't like your kind around here.”
Second, we will look at the inclusive “we”, that is, me and you. “We'd get along better, if I didn't say such things.”
Third, we have the extra-inclusive “we” that includes me, you, and others. Perhaps it could be subsumed in the inclusive set and “we’d all better be better off”. Or perhaps, not.
Fourth, there is the royal “we”, that is, me, myself, and I. Or, more seriously, the self-referent where the self is accompanied by a majesty, grandeur, or authority that is best communicated by more than merely “me”. “We decree that our person is to be addressed as ‘Your Majesty.”
Fifth, the authorial “we”. This “we” is only the author; but unlike the royal version, this one is used to deflect some the attention away from the individual. “We find that this usage is less common today; but it is not entirely outmoded.”
Sixth, and finally, we will learn about the didactic “we”. This version is not about me at all; it is all about you. Parents and teachers are apt to employ this one. “Do we understand, now?"
"Or do we need to read this post again?”
