“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.
There’s no reason why it can’t easily be grammatical, providing that come with is a phrasal verb, meaning about the same thing as come along. In the same way that we ask:
Do you want to come along?
we could say:
Do you want to come with?
German, in fact, has such a verb (mitkommen), and could in fact be one reason why the English version persists in the States, where so many Germans settled.
So your objection has nothing to do with grammar. It’s simply a question of lexicon, because you don’t accept this particular phrasal verb as standard.
After several days of reflection, I think I actually prefer the “go to” construction of the sentence, because it removes ambiguity.
“Where do you want to go?” = “What location do you wish to physically move towards” or “Where do you want to pee/poop?” or “At what location do you wish to play the game of Go”
Whereas
“Where do you want to go to?” pretty much can’t be interpreted any way other than “Where would you like to physically move towards”
That might be the (supposed) reason for the complaint, but in usage, people don’t say this to be redundant.
In fact, it’s not a preposition at all when people say Where are you going to?, but rather an emphatic particle. It serves the same function as on, when people say:
Come on in! (instead of just Come in!)
As others have said, the first sentence seems a little more open-ended.
“Where do you want to go?” can be answered with anything - “Winchester”, “North”, “abroad somewhere”, “down the road”, “away from here”
“Where do you want to go to?” is asking me to pinpoint the destination.
I’ve no real explanation for this, but I strongly feel that “Where do you want to go” is something I’m more likely to write, but “Where do you want to go to” is something I’m more likely to say.
Agree though that the second “to” is redundant and the difference is present but nuanced.
Not as egregiously awkward as Paul McCartney’s “world in which we live in” though.
Just because: Live and Let Die (song) - Wikipedia
I don’t hear it that way. I hear it as a repositioning of the preposition from the head to the tail of the sentence, i.e. instead of “To where are you going” it becomes “Where are you going to?” I don’t hear it as an emphatic particle, myself. It follows a typical English pattern, just like “With whom are you going to the movies” becomes “Who(m) are you going to the movies with.” That’s what I see happening with that “to” at the end–it’s split off the “where.”
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’.
Reminds me of the William Safire’s Fumblerules of Grammar: Don’t use a preposition to end a sentence with.
Native US English speaker here. They have the same meaning.
It should be plainly clear that a preposition is not an appropriate thing to end a sentence with. Also, don’t use no double negatives. If a mixed metaphor sprouts up, it should be derailed. Careful writers know that it is important to never split an infinitive. And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.
While humorous, of course, it’s okay to start a sentence with a conjunction, to split an infinitive, and to end a sentence with a preposition.
The sentence could be “Where do you want to GOTO?” - asked by one programmer of another about where they want to get down and dirty with some old-school code.
Clearly that’s the syntactic origin of this usage, but speakers no longer have that reason not to merge where and to where, as with other case of preposition stranding such as Who are you having lunch with? (We don’t see **Who are you having lunch?*)
IOW, it is precisely because it is “redundant” that it can serve as an emphatic particle.
I’m not necessarily going to argue that it acts as an emphatic–I can buy that. But it’s still a preposition to me, and just as emphatic as if it were placed at the front of the sentence, where there is no doubt of it being a preposition. It does not feel analogous to the use of “on” in your “come on in,” example, but I think we’re splitting hairs here.
I’d say the “to” serves the same purpose of “at” in “Where are you at?” And, thinking that, gave a link to Grammar Girl, who pretty much says what we’ve said here, but adds a history lesson if you click on the subsequent pages.
(She also says I’m wrong about “at,” claiming it’s always redundant except in idiomatic expressions.)
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.
In a few subdialects of Amer Eng, you can say, “Want to come with?” It’s considered slang, whereas the examples above are not so received anymore. Of course that’s just an earlier stage to being accepted more generally in the dialect.
Prescriptive grammarians vs. descriptive linguists.
Take the preposition at the end of sentence. (Please. ha ha) Prescriptive Grammarians above say it’s not grammatical because it doesn’t follow a rule that’s established and taught in English grammar. Descriptive sorts above are making statements about where along a continuum of “ungrammatical” or “grammatical” an expression falls. Of course, their intuitions will differ based on how standard or nonstandard the form is in their subdialect and idiolect.
And what purpose would that be? “Where are you at?” grates the hell out of my ears.