# Mee and Met



## Diablo919

What are the differences? My translator says they both mean "with".

ex.  Kom met mij mee fietsen. 

Why do you need both?


----------



## Forero

I say this haltingly since I don't speak much Dutch.  Please correct me if I'm wrong -

I think they both mean "with", but _met_ is usually followed by an object and _mee_ usually is used where the logical object does not need to be expressed.  _Mee_ is used in translating sentences like "He brought an umbrella with him / along", where the object of _with_ refers to the same person as, for example, the subject, but we don't use _-self_.  No need to decide on the proper pronoun with _mee_.

So I guess you could translate one of the _with_s as "along" = "with me":  "Come along and bike with me." / "Come biking along with me."  Or just leave it out.

I wonder if this has anything to do with Spanish "conmigo" (from Latin _cum me cum_, also with two _with_s).


----------



## muriwery

Kom met mij mee fietsen : Come with me together 

You can use: I ga weg met vrienden Kom jij mee? : I go out with some friends, Do you come with ? 

But if you say met mij: that just mean with me 

I don't know if you understand what I mean. I hope it


----------



## Joannes

The difference is a structural one. *Met* 'with' is a preposition, *mee* is an adverb ('along' would be the most suitable translation, but *mee* is used more often than its English equivalent - it is also used in structures expressing the joining of an action/event by someone/something, for example).


----------



## Elisabeth85

Kom met mij mee = Come along with me

You don't need both, we sometimes use 'double' words that don't add anything to the 'intention' If you are asking someone to join you you can ask:

Kom?  (come?)
Kom je? (you coming?)
Kom je mee? (are you coming along?)
Kom je met mij mee? (are you coming with me?)

Basically it all means the same but "kom" alone is a bit short and needs some added body language sometimes. These are typical examples of speaking-language that is also used in writing when the rules of grammar (writing language) don't apply strictly.


----------



## Lopes

Elisabeth85 said:


> If you are asking someone to join you you can ask:
> 
> Kom? (come?)
> 
> Basically it all means the same but "kom" alone is a bit short and needs some added body language sometimes. These are typical examples of speaking-language that is also used in writing when the rules of grammar (writing language) don't apply strictly.


 
I've never heard just 'Kom?', for me there should be 'je' behind it (even if you add bodylanguage. Could that be regional? 

What I do use sometimes is for example 'Gaan?' instead of 'Gaan we (met hun) mee?'


----------



## Elisabeth85

Yeah, but that's what I meant when I said there probably is some body language involved also when you use just "Kom?" I suppose it's the same as "Gaan?" You usually look at the person and sort of move your head in the direction you want to move/go or there is some signing with the hand.
Often it goes like "Kom? ..... we gaan!" 

Must say I am never that brief but I have seen it used. Plus I was also just making a point that there are so many ways to ask someone to come along with you, you know?


----------



## Lopes

Yeah I understand that, was just wondering if it was maybe regional because I really have _never _heard it being used.


----------



## optimistique

Hi,

As Joannes has pointed out, the difference is indeed not in the meaning, but it is structural. _Mee_ is indeed the adverbial form of _met_.
The difference is very simple and the examples of Elisabeth85 are to be explained as follows:

(a) Kom je?  - Do you come? 

(b) Kom je mee? - Do you come along?

In sentence (a) the verb used is _komen_, and in sentence (b) the verb is _meekomen_. 

So in a sentence as *Kom je met mij mee?*, there is a verb _meekomen_, consisting of a verbal part _komen_ and an adverbial part _mee_ with a prepositional phrase _met mij_. 

Conclusion: We use _mee_ after _met mij _not to reinforce the meaning expressed (although of course that is the effect), but simply because we use the verb _meekomen _in that sentence_._

I hope that I was as easy to understand in my explanation, as the situation is.


----------



## elroy

optimistique said:


> (a) Kom je? - Do you come?
> 
> (b) Kom je mee? - Do you come along?


 In the given context, you would not use the simple present in English, but the present progressive: "Are you coming (along)?"

As in Dutch, it is possible to drop various parts of the sentence. All of the following are possible:

_Coming?_
_You coming?_
_Are you coming?_
_Are you coming along?_

Back to "met" vs. "mee": 

The example with "meekomen" illustrates _one_ of the differences between "met" and "mee." In the sentence "Kom je met mij mee?", "met" and "mee" have different grammatical functions (and slightly different meanings), as has been clearly and adequately explained.

In other contexts, "mee" has the same function as "met" would, but "mee" is required for syntactical and grammatical reasons:

_Dat heeft niets *met* dit onderwerp te maken._
[als het onderwerp reeds bekend is]_ Dat heeft er niets *mee* te maken._

In the above pair of sentences, the two words are 100% identical in meaning and grammatical function, but "mee" is required in the second sentence because of "er." "Mee" is also required with "waar":

_Dat is de man *waar* mijn zus eens *mee* getrouwd was_.
Maar: _Mijn zus was *met* deze man eens getrouwd._


----------



## moldo

Diablo919 said:


> What are the differences? My translator says they both mean "with".
> 
> ex. Kom met mij mee fietsen.
> 
> Why do you need both?


 
Mee is not the same as met. It is a different word with a different meaning.

Meefietsen is bicycling together in the same direction. It can be with anyone.
Met specifies with whom you are bicycling.

Ik fiets met jou mee  - I am bicycling together with you
Ik fiets met hem mee - I am bicycling together with him 
Wij fietsen met hen mee - We are bicycling toghether with them
enzovoorts, enzovoorts - and so on, and so on


----------



## ablativ

optimistique said:


> I hope that I was as easy to understand in my explanation, as the situation is.


 
It surely was easy to understand. It's meegaan (medegaan), meefietsen, ermee, daarmee, waarmee enz. Only used as a preposition it's met. And joining a bicycle tour (mee-/medefietsen) in general, one can be biking side by side with (= met = preposition) with one particular friend. 

"Je moet me ze meezingen!" = "You have to join the choir" -- but what choir? The choir of those people here around, "with" = prep. = met hen / ze.

"With me" does not always fit as a translation for "along". "He came along with his bicycle" = Hij kwam eraan (not ermee) *met *(* = *prep.) z'n fiets.

In my opinion, optimistique's post really explains the situation as it is.


----------



## ablativ

elroy;4905466
... said:


> Dat is de man *waar* mijn zus eens *mee* getrouwd was[/i].
> Maar: _Mijn zus was *met* deze man eens getrouwd._


 
Right you are! There cannot be a preposition before "er, daar, waar". Therefore we would have to use "mee". 

Instead of "waar" one could say "wie" ( "who[m]").

_Dat is de man *met* (prep.) *wie* m'n zus eens getrouwd was._

_That's the man to whom my sister .../ ...who my sister was married to._


----------

