What really bugs me is use of the first person plural, which Microsoft (among others) seems to be doing a lot recently. I feel like I'm being talked down to.

"Let's add your Microsoft account." No, let's not.

▲

ninkendo 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I literally returned a game from steam because it not only required a Microsoft login but the login dialog said “let’s get you signed in.”

I maintain that if it didn’t use such infantilizing wording I may have given it a chance (I had a Microsoft account, after all.)

There’s a certain… dissonance that happens when I’m reading a dialog that pretends me and an app are good buddies, old pals, when in reality I fucking hate the company involved. It can make me feel physically angry, like enough to want to throw my computer. I’m fully aware that this is a flaw in my personality, but I just hate it so, so, so much.

Ditto “Got it!” (With the cutesy fucking exclamation point) and other similar informal language in the buttons.

	▲	MereInterest 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s NewSpeak. The concept is often misapplied to refer to the use of new words for new/nuanced concepts, but that isn’t accurate to how it is described in 1984. Instead, NewSpeak is a stripping away of words and phrases, such that only the acceptable responses can even be expressed. Every time a dialogue box has “Sure”/“Ask me later”, they are preventing you from expressing “No”.

▲

simonask 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Let's" in English does not mean "let us".

I mean, it literally does, but language is not literal.

For the record, I also dislike the familiarity.

▲

efdee 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I can't think of any situation where "let's" does not mean "let us"?

▲

danaris 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You and simonask are speaking at different levels of literality.

Yes, literally, "let's" expands to "let us". But idiomatically, "let's/let us <do this thing>" does not mean "allow us to <do this thing>"; it means "I am requesting that we now <do this thing> together".

Now, I'm not entirely sure why simonask felt this level of literality was a useful one to bring up here, but it is true.

	▲	efdee 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		True, but the point was not that they were asking permission, it's the "let us do this together" meaning to which the OP takes offense. He feels like it implies he cannot do it on his own.

▲

tommica 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Let's go!"

▲

lionkor 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Literally "let us go", there's no way around the literal meaning

▲

RiverCrochet 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Let literally means "allow." In many cases where this is said, the person saying it isn't blocking/preventing/gatewaying anyone from going. So the literal meaning of "allow" is not intended.

▲

efdee 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Let literally means a lot of things, one of them being "allow us to". But that is only one of many of its literal meanings.

▲

ninkendo 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Words have more than one meaning.

Let also means "to cause to" as in "let me know", or can be "used in the imperative to introduce a request or proposal", as in "let us pray". (Or "let there be light.")

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/let

The definition you're referring to matches definition 2a, "to give opportunity to or fail to prevent", or definition 4: "to permit to enter, pass, or leave".

"Let's go" absolutely means "let us go". There's no way around it. It's just not the version of "let" that you may be used to, but that doesn't change anything.

▲

esafak 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Let's go" never means "let us go". Just try to articulate it as such! I can't.

▲

efdee 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

"Let us go" does not only mean "you should let us go" but it is also the first person plural imperative implying that we go. Whether you shorten it to "let's go" or not does not change this.

Same as how "let us pray" is frequently used as well.

▲

toast0 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Shall we go?

Let us go / Let's go / Let's

If you don't want to use the full form, it shan't stop me.

▲

esafak 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don't know if I'm being clear. Say you and your family were imprisoned. You would never demand to be released by saying "let's go!". Your family might well ask "Where, to the other corner of the cell?"

	▲	efdee 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You can't always replace "let us" with "let's", but you can always replace "let's" with "let us".

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

card_zero 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I dislike the dishonesty. Compare to this line from Office Space: "I'm gonna need you to go ahead and work Saturday". Here go ahead implies that you're being given permission to joyfully do some work you were eager to do. In the Microsoft example, let's implies that this is a bright idea for something fun for you to do with Microsoft, your friend with your best interests at heart.

▲

BrandoElFollito 6 hours ago | parent [-]

As a non-English speaker, my understanding of no ahead did not have any joyful connotation. It was rather to express that someone will need to do something that has an initial friction, so not enjoyable.

	▲	bregma 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Your understanding does not match the broadly accepted idiomatic meaning of the expression. The humour comes from the implied inversion of sacrifice, a kind of irony.