| ▲ | simonask 9 hours ago |
| "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 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I can't think of any situation where "let's" does not mean "let us"? |
| |
| ▲ | danaris 4 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 2 hours 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 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Let's go!" | | |
| ▲ | lionkor 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Literally "let us go", there's no way around the literal meaning | | |
| ▲ | RiverCrochet 5 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. | | |
| ▲ | ninkendo 3 hours ago | parent | 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. | |
| ▲ | efdee 2 hours ago | parent | prev | 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. | |
| ▲ | esafak 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Let's go" never means "let us go". Just try to articulate it as such! I can't. | | |
| ▲ | efdee 2 hours 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 3 hours 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 3 hours 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 bemused family might well ask "Where, to the other corner of the cell?" | | |
| ▲ | ninkendo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | English contractions are weird in general in that it doesn't always "work" to contract two words. Tom Scott does a good video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkZyZFa5qO0 (Example, "Is this a good idea? Yes, it's!" sounds wrong. But "it's" still means "it is". It would just sound weird to use a contraction in that context.) | |
| ▲ | efdee 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can't always replace "let us" with "let's", but you can always replace "let's" with "let us". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | card_zero 9 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 8 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 7 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. |
|
|
