Causative, not passive?

"Let's get started" sounds like an ellipse of "Let's get [sth.] started", for example:

Let's get the session started.

The sentence still looks like a passive construction, but this is deceptive: it is not a passive.

It is NOT "we" that get started, but something, for instance a session, that gets or rather that we get started.

To disprove that we have a case of passive voice at hand, let's get the sentence modified: If we used the verb "be", the sentence would only make sense if we said:

The session was started.

Not:

*We were started. This clearly makes no sense. "To get started" is not a passive voice.

In the same vein, 'let's get drunk' is not a case of passive, but a caseof a causative use of the verb "get". Why? Because 'let's get drunk' actually means:

Let's get us/ourselves drunk.

And to prove this claim, we can change the the indirect object pronoun "us/ourselves" without altering the meaning of the verb in question:

Let's get Joe drunk!

Causative, not passive?

"Let's get started" sounds like an ellipse of "Let's get [sth.] started", for example:

Let's get the session started.

The sentence still looks like a passive construction, but this is deceptive: it is not a passive.

It is NOT "we" that get started, but something, for instance a session, that gets or rather that we get started.

To disprove that we have a case of passive voice at hand, let's get the sentence modified: If we used the verb "be", the sentence would only make sense if we said:

The session was started.

Not:

*We were started.

This clearly makes no sense. "To get started" is not a passive voice.

In the same vein, 'let's get drunk' is not a case of passive, but a case of a causative use of the verb "get". Why? Because 'let's get drunk' actually means:

Let's get us/ourselves drunk.

And to prove this claim, we can change the the indirect object pronoun "us/ourselves" without altering the meaning of the verb in question:

Let's get Joe drunk!

Causative, not passive?

"Let's get started" sounds like an ellipse of "Let's get [sth.] started", for example:

Let's get the session started.

The sentence still looks like a passive construction, but this is deceptive: it is not a passive.

It is NOT "we" that get started, but something, for instance a session, that gets or rather that we get started.

To disprove that we have acase of passive voice at hand, let's get the sentence modified: If we used the verb "be", the sentence would only make sense if we said:

The session was started.

Not:

*We were started.

In the same vein, 'let's get drunk' is not a case of passive, but a caseof a causative use of the verb "get". Why? Because 'let's get drunk' actually means:

Let's get us/ourselves drunk.

And to prove this claim, we can change the the indirect object pronoun "us/ourselves" without altering the meaning of the verb in question:

Let's get Joe drunk!

and as passive requires a subject it can only be that the subject in this sentence was dropped, as it is redundant to mention it in the context.

Causative, not passive?

"Let's get started" sounds like an ellipse of "Let's get [sth.] started", for example:

Let's get the session started.

The sentence still looks like a passive construction, but this is deceptive: it is not a passive.

It is NOT "we" that get started, but something, for instance a session, that gets or rather that we get started.

To disprove that we have a case of passive voice at hand, let's get the sentence modified: If we used the verb "be", the sentence would only make sense if we said:

The session was started.

Not:

*We were started. This clearly makes no sense. "To get started" is not a passive voice.

In the same vein, 'let's get drunk' is not a case of passive, but a caseof a causative use of the verb "get". Why? Because 'let's get drunk' actually means:

Let's get us/ourselves drunk.

And to prove this claim, we can change the the indirect object pronoun "us/ourselves" without altering the meaning of the verb in question:

Let's get Joe drunk!