# is there any differences in meaning between the two following sentences: **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 3, 2014, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895 "2014-06-03T04:41:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![tapu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@tapu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tapu)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895/41 "2014-06-06T16:51:23Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > “Want to come with” is in no way grammatically correct. Sure, it’s idiomatic to a specific group, or groups of English speakers, but is in no possible way considered correct English grammar. It’s perfectly acceptable within its dialect. The study of language isn’t about applying rules anymore. It’s about capturing how a linguistic group speaks today. ---
**Author:** ![tapu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@tapu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tapu)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895/42 "2014-06-06T17:06:00Z")
meant to replace the above with this, but timed out: > [@Leaffan](#): > > “Want to come with” is in no way grammatically correct. Sure, it’s idiomatic to a specific group, or groups of English speakers, but is in no possible way considered correct English grammar. It’s perfectly acceptable–grammatical-- to the speakers of its dialect. The study of language isn’t about applying rules. That was school days. Academic study of it is about capturing how a linguistic group speaks today. You and I aren’t saying anything different per se, of course. But in a prescriptive mode, you are adopting the standard dialect–and beyond, with specific formality. In Linguistics, no dialect is the one that’s _correct_ ---
**Author:** ![tapu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@tapu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tapu)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895/43 "2014-06-06T17:36:37Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > And what purpose would that be? “Where are you at?” grates the hell out of my ears. I know a great career for you–teacher. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895/44 "2014-06-06T22:15:27Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > This is a hair I’m guilty of splitting, if only because I believe that, in order to fully portray what we do with language, we can’t allow form to cloud our view of function, which often isn’t adequately described by the traditional repertoire of parts of speech. Oh, I agree, but I feel that this particular instance–to the way my brain parses it–fully fits in with the traditional prepositional analysis. You hear it differently. That’s fine–it’s not an exact science. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895/45 "2014-06-07T00:26:45Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I’d say the “to” serves the same purpose of “at” in “Where are you at?” … > [@Leaffan](#): > > And what purpose would that be? “Where are you at?” grates the hell out of my ears. > [@tapu](#): > > I know a great career for you–teacher. I’m asking what the purpose is. It “serves the same purpose of ‘at’ in 'where are you at?” It is a real question. What purpose does it serve? ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895/46 "2014-06-07T02:56:04Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I’m asking what the purpose is. It “serves the same purpose of ‘at’ in 'where are you at?” > > It is a real question. What purpose does it serve? Several posters in this thread, including myself, have already pointed out, in one way or another, that they serve as discourse particles. You may not realize it, but a large part of language isn’t representational. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895/47 "2014-06-07T06:19:44Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I’ve used that explanation before, but I’m no longer wholly convinced it’s true after listening to a few live recordings where it pretty clearly sounds like “in which we live in” and not "in which we’re livin’. I own a vintage copy of “Wings Complete” published by Hal Leonard,which I purchased new in 1977. The published lyrics clearly say “in which we’re living”. ---
**Author:** ![tapu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@tapu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tapu)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895/48 "2014-06-07T10:40:43Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I’m asking what the purpose is. It “serves the same purpose of ‘at’ in 'where are you at?” > > It is a real question. What purpose does it serve? Not sure why Big T’s comment is quoted along with mine, but I wasn’t speaking of purpose at all. I will now though. 😛 Not every element in an utterance has an explicit or exclusive purpose. Natural language strives for redundancy as well as efficiency. Both serve to maximize communication/understanding. The ‘at’ and ‘to’ we’re talking about here seem to me to be added redundancy. Another example of redundancy in English is how the subject and verb of a sentence are both marked as singular or plural: A dog barks. Dogs bark. Note that even the article adds redundancy. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895/49 "2014-06-07T22:24:45Z")
> [@tapu](#): > > Not sure why Big T’s comment is quoted along with mine, but I wasn’t speaking of purpose at all. > > I will now though. 😛 Not every element in an utterance has an explicit or exclusive purpose. Natural language strives for redundancy as well as efficiency. Both serve to maximize communication/understanding. The ‘at’ and ‘to’ we’re talking about here seem to me to be added redundancy. Another example of redundancy in English is how the subject and verb of a sentence are both marked as singular or plural: A dog barks. Dogs bark. Note that even the article adds redundancy. Yes, I agree that these particles (_to_, _at_) serve for communication, but I would not say simply as redundancy for redundancy’s sake. I’ll repeat what I mentioned above: _ **Much of language usage is not strictly representational.** _ The discourse particle _at_ in _Where are you at?_ is not simply a repetition of the locative semantics already conveyed by _where_. As Wikipedia describes it, [QUOTE=Wikipedia] [A] discourse particle is a lexeme (word or phrase) or particle that adds no direct semantic meaning in the context of a sentence, having rather a pragmatic function: it indicates the speaker’s attitude, or helps structure their interactions with other participants in a conversation. [/quote] Maybe a more illustrative example for this thread is the case of _ **downtown** _. _Go_ collocates with _downtown_ in a similar way as it does with _where_: it doesn’t require _to_. So we can imagine this likely exchange between two bus riders: A: _I thought you said this bus is going downtown!_ B: _No, I didn’t say it’s going TO downtown; I said it’s coming FROM downtown._ Speaker B’s use of _to_ here is only “redundant” semantically. Pragmatically it serves a separate and distinct purpose. And there are other circumstances where speakers will use these particles for much more subtle reasons. Most linguists agree that if there are two acceptable but distinct ways to say something within a discourse community, there’s usually a reason for it. (I.e., it’s not simply redundancy.) I’ll say it again: _Much of language usage isn’t representational_. The past tense isn’t always about the past. [Deixis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis) is not always about proximity. Diminutives are not always about size. There’s a lot more going on with how we use language; it’s a lot more complex. If we say these particles are redundant just for the sake of it, we’re kind of ignoring a big part of the story. Even with the article mentioned in the example above about dogs and barking, I don’t think the singular marking is purely redundant, when you examine how it’s used in context – it isn’t there just to indicate a distinction between singular and plural. To throw out an example along the same theme: \*A dog from a house near mine was barking all last night. I don’t know why, but the dog just wouldn’t shut up. Whatever the reason, its owner should know what’s happening and do something. Honestly, by 3:00am I was ready to kill that dog, if given the chance. I understand dogs will naturally just bark from time to time, but when a dog goes on like this for hours, there’s something wrong. Clearly this dog has some kind of problem. \*The articles range and serve various discursive or affective purposes, which show that, pragmatically, articles do much more than simply indicate number (singular or plural). _a dog_ – first mention _the dog_ – shared knowledge _that dog_ – negative affect _Ø dogs_ – universal plural _a dog_ – universal singular (not first mention, as in the beginning) _this dog_ – positive affect. I don’t think the verb conjugation (or the noun) in _a dog barks_ makes the singular marking of the article “redundant” – it allows a distinction we don’t get, for example, between _the dog_ and _the dogs_, and it’s why _some dog_ can carry a distinct connotation. By the way, this is the only conjugation left in all of the English language. Even today, in language instruction, there’s way too much obsession with verb forms, when these other things which also constitute true proficiency in language get ignored. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-differences-in-meaning-between-the-two-following-sentences/689895.md?page=2)