3

Growing up I had a friend whose family would constantly say "Are you going with?" or similar. It always annoyed me. Fast forward 20 years and now I have a coworker who does the same.

"I'm going to lunch, do you want to come with?"

It annoys me, but is it wrong?

p.s. Sorry if this is a duplicate. It was a difficult thing to search.

  • 2
    Sounds like simple ellipsis to me. – TRiG Jul 9 '13 at 20:36
  • 1
    This is completely normal in many places. I have heard it proposed that it may be related to German immigrants saying “Kommst du mit?”, but I have no actual data to back up that theory. It is certainly common (to the point of being wholly unremarkable) in southeastern Wisconsin, which has seen no small influx of German immigration in times past. – tchrist Jul 9 '13 at 21:44
  • 1
    possible duplicate of Can you grammatically end a sentence with "with"?. The SO search facility is useless for search terms like "come with". But I knew it was there, and a Google site search finds it easily. – FumbleFingers Jul 10 '13 at 2:36
  • 2
    @ Scott: Don't feel bad about it. In fact even though I think it's definitely a duplicate, I'm upvoting your question because you at least tried to find the info here or elsewhere. And I'm upvoting @Avner's answer 'cos I like pretty pictures! :) – FumbleFingers Jul 10 '13 at 17:02
10

There is a fascinating site for dialect maps made by one Joshua Katz of NC State University, based on a linguistic survey by the University of Cambridge. It shows variations in dialects across the USA in a variety of topics, one of them is this "do you want to come with" that seems to annoy you.

enter image description here

Looking at this map, you can see that "coming with" is distincly common in Minnesota and the surrounding states, but rather rare elsewhere. I suggest following the link above and choosing Question 51 in the drop-down menu to see a full-sized map, as well as geographical distribution of specific answers to this question.

Such distinct usage in a specific dialect strongly hints that while it's not a formal usage that would pass copy editing for a paper or national newspaper, it's certainly not wrong for the dialects it's used in, and it's not an individual idiosyncracy of your coworker trying to annoy you. :)

  • Avner, so you are saying that, other than the direct object "me", one can drop, too, the particle "with"; so that "do you want to come" is almost always acceptable English when used in the place of "do you want to come with me"? – user19148 Jul 9 '13 at 21:34
  • Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. – Avner Shahar-Kashtan Jul 9 '13 at 21:35
  • Avner, then, what are you saying? I don't understand the answer as it stands! – user19148 Jul 9 '13 at 21:37
  • 3
    The OP asked if this usage is wrong. I showed that this usage is dialectical, and therefore probably not wrong (in context). I made no claims about lingustic rules or when one can drop anything. – Avner Shahar-Kashtan Jul 9 '13 at 21:38
  • Avner, thank you; since I was confused, now it is more clear. – user19148 Jul 9 '13 at 21:41
-3

This language is acceptable in informal speech, net prose, polyphonic prose and informal familiar emails; but when it comes to standard conversational speech, it is in error, as the direct object (me) is not used. It is an unknown antecedent, and it should not be left out when people do not know to whom or what the person is referring, and should only be used when the antecedent is evident from the context of the situation.

  • So you're saying the examples I gave are acceptable in daily conversation because it's obvious who they mean? "Do you want to go with me?" etc. I guess there's gray area, but it seems that changing the rules for understood implication opens up the door for saying "you go with?" is acceptable because people understand the meaning. – Devil's Advocate Jul 9 '13 at 21:01
  • Billy, so you are saying that it exists a tendency to remove direct objects in the case they are 'me', 'you', etcetera? – user19148 Jul 9 '13 at 21:14
  • No, it's not an "unknown antecedent," whatever that is. The antecedent is an elided "me" or "us"—which one, should be clear from context. It's not "incorrect" but a regional dialectical usage as the map in Avner's answer makes clear. – dodgethesteamroller Jul 10 '13 at 1:41

protected by tchrist Aug 26 '18 at 20:31

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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