I was told that these two expressions mean the same thing, but I’m not sure about that. Is my usage correct in both of these examples? Is their meaning roughly equivalent?

I’ll get (straight) to the point: you need to chill out first.

I’ll come (straight) to the point: you must not do that.

closed as not a real question by tchrist, cornbread ninja 麵包忍者, Kristina Lopez, Robusto, MetaEd Apr 3 '13 at 2:39

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


Yes, they're fine. And they mean the same thing.

Both use a metaphor of conversation as movement from one point to another; in this sense they're the same as

  • I'll come to the party tonight.
  • I'll get to the party tonight.

both of which mean that I will attend the party tonight, at some point; get to means arrive at in this sense, not far distant from its normal inchoative sense of come to be.

  • Hmm, so could they also be used in this sense? "I wish you'd get to the point" and "I wish you'd come to the point" – Dragon Buster Apr 2 '13 at 17:44
  • Yup. Pretty much interchangeable; there are probably some contexts where one might have an invited inference (like I'll get to it may mean it will take a while). – John Lawler Apr 2 '13 at 17:57

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.