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

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 4 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 an hour 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".