Re: Let us lettuce (was Re: Fiat Lux)

Q: "Shall we dance?"
A: "Yes, let's."

That, to me, sounds like the second person is responding to an invitation by
"commanding" both of them to dance.  Would this 'let's' be inclusive we?

FWIW, I cannot agree the non-interchangeablility of 'let's' and 'let us.'
The latter may be more formal (and therefore out of vogue), but not
un-understandable ("let us dance" as an invitation/imperative).  But Muke
hit on the answer when he suggeted the difference between inclusive we and
exclusive we.  The tone of voice and body language the speaker uses would
make the intention clear.

Guy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Muke Tever [mailto:alrivera@SOUTHERN.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 12:42 AM
> To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
> Subject: Re: Let us lettuce (was Re: Fiat Lux)
>
>
> From: "Nik Taylor" <fortytwo@...>
> > Muke Tever wrote:
> > > In _function_ it can be.  (can be.)
> > >
> > > But the _form_ is simply second-person imperative of
> 'let' plus a verb.
> > > Literally it just comes out to "(you) allow us to dance".
> >
> > Let's can ONLY be used as a first person plural imperative.
>  No native
> > speaker would ever say "Let's dance" to mean "Allow us to
> dance".  For
> > that meaning, you'd say "Let us dance".
>
> That's just a distinction between inclusive we "'s" (let's X)
> and exclusive
> we "us" (let us X).  At least for me it is.  I wouldn't say
> "let us dance"
> to my dance partner (although I might say it to her chaperone).
>
>     Allow me to have this dance with you?
>     (Let's have this dance.)
>
>     Allow me to have this dance with her?
>     (Let us have this dance.)
>
> > Let's ORIGINATED as a simple
> > contraction of "let us",
>
> Well, when I said 'literally', I literally meant 'literally'.  ;)
>
> > but, except in certain formal situations (like
> > in church; "Let us pray"), _let's_ and _let us_ can't be used
> > interchangeably.
>
>
>
>     *Muke!
> --
> "Let us not talk falsely now; the hour is getting late"
>

Reply