“I’ll see you when I see you” is an occasionally-used phrase that sounds completely uninformative and tautologically true. But if, in fact, I will not see you ever, is the statement true or false?
Similarly:
Would this self-referential tautology be true if it was not applied to an alligator but rather to, say, love (which has no shape or breadth, except perhaps metaphorically)?
It is true.
And if you really don’t understand what this idiom means, it means that I am am not going to make a date or appointment to see you again.
Why?
Duh.
I’ll see you when I see you.
If I see you again, then I have seen you at the moment when I saw you. Statement is true.
If I do NOT see you again, then I have not seen you, but because I haven’t seen you, it isn’t pertinent to the statement in question. Statement is still true.
For a really fun twist, you can also take into consideration that “seeing” doesn’t require the participation of the seen.
So Reyemile could be a corpse, and therefore not see njtt, but njtt goes to Reyemile’s open-casket funeral, and sees them again. hijinks ensue.
Learn to notice things like italics when you read.
Incidentally, the second example is also true, something like love, that has no breadth is indeed just as as broad as it hath breadth. 0=0
It is a vacuous truth.
Used to good effect in the film Gallipoli … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_%281981_film%29
Archy Hamilton: I’ll see you when I see you.
Frank Dunne: Yeah. Not if I see you first.
Wherever I go, there I am. 
Stalker’s twist - Wherever you go, there I am
Yeah, the answer is “never”.
I’ll see you never so I’ll see you never.
I’ve never understood what that reply meant. Please explain if you have an idea.
The nearest I could figure is that it was a way of friendly chops busting by Frank (and later in the movie Archie) replying that if Frank (later Archie) sees Archie (later Frank) before Archie (later Frank) sees Frank (later Archie), then Frank (later Archie) will duck out of the way so that Archie (later Frank) never in fact sees Frank (later Archie). But that still would not negate the initial statement.
Then I’ve also wondered if it may have been just a sort of verbal 1-2 that was in common parlance at the time? Perhaps an anachronistic Aussieism? Or just made up by the screenwriter? I’ve never heard that reply anywhere but in that movie.
It is what it is.
Yeah. Not if it’s not.
See you later
Not if I see you first
A fairly common retort literally meaning “I don’t want anything to do with you and will avoid you if I am able to”. Generally its humourous undertones are understood and it is perceived as mild banter.
Extended to the “See you when I see you” line of Gallipoli makes less sense if taken literally. But given that both lines are intended quips it is not an implausible line.
You’ll understand when you understand.
Not sure about it’s use at the time the film was set but a few things that might help you…
Addressing the meaning of the actual phrase -
It basically means - well, I’m not sure what my plans are, or when we’ll get back together. Let’s not make a date, but rather agree to get together again when the stars align - which given that we move in the same circles won’t be that long
As someone who works extensively with databases, I’m going to have to disagree with you there. Love doesn’t have a defined breadth of 0; the whole notion of breadth is undefined for something abstract like love. Therefore, the breadth of love is, by database convention, NULL, and NULL != NULL. The notion of the breadth of love is as meaningless and undefined as, say, the grumpiness of blue, or the zondliness of the UN.
Whether this statement about breadth is also true for a mathematical line is left as as exercise for the reader, although I would suggest that since it has a defined width of 0, it is true.
As someone who interacts with high level corporate management and customers I often hear the phase “I’ll see you when I see you” or something similar all the time. Generally it means “Can’t get to you now I’m busy fighting other fires; I’ll get back to you when I have the time or remind me next time we run into each other.” Of course running into these guys is a rare occurrence.
Yes it’s snarky statement, but if I were to reply back with a smart ass comment like “Not if I see you first” I’d get a moment of there time, just enough time to get both barrels of their rage and not get any movement on my request.
It is most often used just as a bit of meaningless banter, but ‘not if I see you first’ tends to imply “you won’t see me at all, because if I see you first, I’ll avoid you”.
Think of it as using some of the maxims of conversational implicature:
First, notice that it’s true of any two people when they part, no matter how soon they will see each other and how much they want to see each other. Imagine a young couple in love. As he leaves the bedroom to go to the bathroom, he says to her, “Well, I’ll see you when I’ll see you.” She should certainly be worried what he means by that. And yet it’s true, so why should she be?
It’s because one of the maxims of conversational implicature is that you don’t say things that convey no new information. For him to say that in that situation implies that it’s new information. She has to think, “What does he mean by saying that?” Similarly, when two people part with no plans to meet again, when one of them says, “Well, I’ll see you when I’ll see you,” he intends to imply that he can’t say, “Well, I’ll see you.” He doesn’t know if they will ever meet again (or perhaps he knows that they probably will, but he can’t say just when it will be).
People frequently say things that make no sense as a statement using just logic. Mere mathematical logic doesn’t explain everything we say. You have to consider many other things, including the maxims of conversational implicature.
AND furthermore, you’ll get there when you get there.
(with the possible exception of Oakland, Ca., where you aren’t there even when you’re there, there being no there there.)