5 ms·

Nice! One pedantic note, hopefully helpful: "this let's you move further" should be "this lets you move further" -- there is no apostrophe in "lets" unless it'

by pinko 4y ago

Nice! One pedantic note, hopefully helpful: "this let's you move further" should be "this lets you move further" -- there is no apostrophe in "lets" unless it's a contraction of "let us".

stavros 4y ago
Also, "farther", unless it means you move again.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> there is no apostrophe in "lets" unless it's a contraction of "let us". It is not obvious that the form let's is a contraction of "let us". For one thing, it's not generally possible to expand it into the notional "uncontracted form"; if the form were a contraction, that would be easy to do.
- metabagel 4y ago
  Why not? “Let us have a cup of tea.” Seems valid to me.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > Why not? Well, because you can't. This is like asking why the word for "dog" isn't "grup". It just isn't, and thinking there might be a reason is an error. That's not how language works. But in a different world, the word for "dog" might be different. "Let us have a cup of tea" isn't something that anyone would say (outside of a demand for permission), and if you say it, at best you'll get very funny looks. Here's what CGEL has to say (page 935): > Syntactically, this construction indicates that the specialisation of let has been taken a significant step further. The 's here is not replaceable by us [...] It seems clear, rather, that let and 's have fused syntactically as well as phonologically, and are no longer analysable as verb + object: they form a single word which functions as marker of the 1st person inclusive imperative construction.
    - sdenton4 4y ago
      Merriam Webster says it's a contraction of "let us." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/let's https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/let's People may look at you funny now, but less so in victorian England. (Edit: OED agrees, in case we don't trust filthy American dictionaries. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/let-s?q=Let%27s https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng... )
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        I mean, if you want to settle this by appeal to authority, I already quoted CGEL, which is much more authoritative. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-grammar-of-the-english-language/A78402ABF5176AD283494180BCA2046F https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-grammar-of-th... How the word originated doesn't tell you what it is now.
        sdenton4 4y ago
        Not at all a nonsense word situation, as you said above, though. Also not sure I would say cgel > oed for authoritative sources of meanings of words in English... But you do you.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > Not at all a nonsense word situation, as you said above, though. Where did I say that? > Also not sure I would say cgel > oed for authoritative sources of meanings of words in English... But you do you. There are a couple of problems with this: - CGEL is not a source for the meaning of words; it's a description of the grammar of English. But that's fine here, because "how many words is let's?" is a grammatical question. - The OED is a source for the meaning of words, making it a bad choice for grammatical questions, which are tangential to its purpose. - The OED also deals extensively with the historical usage of words, even when that usage is not possible in the modern language. You have to be careful. - You haven't cited the OED. Your link goes to the unrelated "Oxford Learner's Dictionaries". The OED is at least a name with immense prestige; the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries is not at all the same thing.

by pinko 4y ago

Nice! One pedantic note, hopefully helpful: "this let's you move further" should be "this lets you move further" -- there is no apostrophe in "lets" unless it's a contraction of "let us".

stavros 4y ago

Also, "farther", unless it means you move again.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> there is no apostrophe in "lets" unless it's a contraction of "let us". It is not obvious that the form let's is a contraction of "let us". For one thing, it's not generally possible to expand it into the notional "uncontracted form"; if the form were a contraction, that would be easy to do.

metabagel 4y ago
Why not? “Let us have a cup of tea.” Seems valid to me.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > Why not? Well, because you can't. This is like asking why the word for "dog" isn't "grup". It just isn't, and thinking there might be a reason is an error. That's not how language works. But in a different world, the word for "dog" might be different. "Let us have a cup of tea" isn't something that anyone would say (outside of a demand for permission), and if you say it, at best you'll get very funny looks. Here's what CGEL has to say (page 935): > Syntactically, this construction indicates that the specialisation of let has been taken a significant step further. The 's here is not replaceable by us [...] It seems clear, rather, that let and 's have fused syntactically as well as phonologically, and are no longer analysable as verb + object: they form a single word which functions as marker of the 1st person inclusive imperative construction.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    Merriam Webster says it's a contraction of "let us." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/let's https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/let's People may look at you funny now, but less so in victorian England. (Edit: OED agrees, in case we don't trust filthy American dictionaries. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/let-s?q=Let%27s https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng... )
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      I mean, if you want to settle this by appeal to authority, I already quoted CGEL, which is much more authoritative. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-grammar-of-the-english-language/A78402ABF5176AD283494180BCA2046F https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-grammar-of-th... How the word originated doesn't tell you what it is now.
      - sdenton4 4y ago
        Not at all a nonsense word situation, as you said above, though. Also not sure I would say cgel > oed for authoritative sources of meanings of words in English... But you do you.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > Not at all a nonsense word situation, as you said above, though. Where did I say that? > Also not sure I would say cgel > oed for authoritative sources of meanings of words in English... But you do you. There are a couple of problems with this: - CGEL is not a source for the meaning of words; it's a description of the grammar of English. But that's fine here, because "how many words is let's?" is a grammatical question. - The OED is a source for the meaning of words, making it a bad choice for grammatical questions, which are tangential to its purpose. - The OED also deals extensively with the historical usage of words, even when that usage is not possible in the modern language. You have to be careful. - You haven't cited the OED. Your link goes to the unrelated "Oxford Learner's Dictionaries". The OED is at least a name with immense prestige; the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries is not at all the same thing.