# Come to the beach with us



## gabriel001234

"Will you come with us to the beach?"

Why is "come" used there if neither the speaker nor the listener are at the beach when the speaker's is inviting the listener to go to the beach with them? To my knowledge, we use _come_ to describe movement between the speaker and listener, and movement from another place to the place where the speaker or listener is, but none of them are at the beach.


----------



## Chasint

If I say "Will you go with us?", it implies we are equal agents. It is a simple query.

If I say "Will you come with us?", it implies that we are the leaders/main protagonists and you are following along. It is an invitation to join the group.


----------



## The Newt

You can use "come" when the idea is "accompany us." If I'm going to the beach I can invite you to come with me, but if I'm not going myself I would have to say "Are you _going_ to the beach?"


----------



## gabriel001234

The Newt said:


> You can use "come" when the idea is "accompany us." If I'm going to the beach I can invite you to come with me, but if I'm not going myself I would have to say "Are you _going_ to the beach?"


Is "come" used in that case because the listener will constantly move to the speaker's location since they will accompany the speaker, or is it used because the speaker knows that they will go to the beach and, therefore, they talk like they are actually there?


----------



## The Newt

gabriel001234 said:


> Is "come" used in that case because the listener will constantly move to the speaker's location since they will accompany the speaker, or is it used because the speaker knows that they will go to the beach and, therefore, they talk like they are actually there?



The speaker is going to go from point A to the beach, and the listener is being invited to accompany the speaker. They'll be making the same trip, at the same time.


----------



## gabriel001234

The Newt said:


> The speaker is going to go from point A to the beach, and the listener is being invited to accompany the speaker. They'll be making the same trip, at the same time.


I know that, but I would like to know why come is used there if "come" implies movement between the speaker and the listener.


----------



## The Newt

gabriel001234 said:


> I know that, but I would like to know why come is used there if "come" implies movement between the speaker and the listener.



I think you're overthinking it. _We're going; would you like to come with us?_


----------



## gabriel001234

The Newt said:


> I think you're overthinking it. _We're going; would you like to come with us?_


Is come used there because the listener will move in the direction of the speaker since the listener needs to follow the speaker along the way to the beach?


----------



## Myridon

Native speakers learn to use "come" and "go" entirely by example.  There is no rule or logical thought process going through our heads as we speak.  We learned it when we were too young to even conceive of such a complex idea.


----------



## gabriel001234

Myridon said:


> Native speakers learn to use "come" and "go" entirely by example.  There is no rule or logical thought process going through our heads as we speak.  We learned it when we were too young to even conceive of such a complex idea.


I know that. I just want to know if my thought makes at least some sense. I know when to use one or the other, but I really want to know the logic behind it.


----------



## Myridon

No.  The listener and the speaker will move in parallel, as one.  At some point, they will be in the same place and go to the beach together.  They are not heading toward the beach from opposite ends of the earth.


----------



## gabriel001234

Myridon said:


> No.  The listener and the speaker will move in parallel, as one.  At some point, they will be in the same place and go to the beach together.  They are not heading toward the beach from opposite ends of the earth.


I haven't said they move from opposite ends of the earth. I've said that the listener will move in the direction of the speaker since the listener will follow the speaker (they will end up going to the same place together since one will follow the other). As Chasint said, if I use "come", people will follow me to get to the destination. Therefore, they are moving "towards me" (and "with me" as they are coming along) since I'm the one who's leading the group. Does that make sense now?

EDIT:
I've read a thread on Quora about this subject. It seems that one of the posters shares my opinion (the listener "moves to/toward" the speaker according to the point of view of the speaker). Also, a different poster talks about the future perspective of both of them (the listener and the speaker) being at the destination.

Source: https://www.quora.com/What-is-correct-to-say-I-will-go-with-you-or-I-will-come-with-you


----------



## Myridon

If you really mean that the listener moves in the direction of the speaker (toward the speaker), they will get closer and closer to each other.
If you actually mean that the listener moves in the same direction as the speaker, it doesn't matter if they are coming or going (it is true in either case).


----------



## gabriel001234

I mean that the listener will follow the speaker (and move "towards him/her"), so that's why "come" is used in that case (there is a movement between the speaker and the listener, that is, the listener will move in the direction of the speaker/follow them). Check that thread on Quora. Lynette VanWagner talks exactly about what I'm trying to tell you.


----------



## Myridon

It is not necessary for one person to literally "follow" the other. The passenger of a car doesn't "follow" the driver in any way.  Two people can walk side by side.  The other person can even walk in front.  The speaker leads in that the speaker causes the trip to happen, not that the speaker literally goes in front.


----------



## Andygc

gabriel001234 said:


> Lynette VanWagner talks exactly about what I'm trying to tell you.


What prevents her explanation from being wrong? Posts 2 and 3 in this thread explain the small difference in meaning between "come with" and "go with". There is no logic behind it.


----------



## gabriel001234

Myridon said:


> It is not necessary for one person to literally "follow" the other. The passenger of a car doesn't "follow" the driver in any way.  Two people can walk side by side.  The other person can even walk in front.  The speaker leads in that the speaker causes the trip to happen, not that the speaker literally goes in front.


I've never said that the speaker goes in front. I've only said that the listener will go wherever the speaker goes as the listener is "coming" with the speaker/following them.


----------



## gabriel001234

Andygc said:


> What prevents her explanation from being wrong? Posts 2 and 3 in this thread explain the small difference in meaning between "come with" and "go with". There is no logic behind it.


Don't get me wrong, but she's a native speaker and an ESL instructor for international college students, so her explanation needs to be taken into account. I don't think it's about being correct or incorrect. A different poster talks about the future perspective of both of them (the listener and the speaker) being at the destination. He's a professional writer, editor and has a master's degree in Linguistics. Is he necessarily wrong? 

Also, my question wasn't about the meaning of "come with" and "go with". It was about the logic behind using one or the other.


----------



## SevenDays

gabriel001234 said:


> "Will you come with us to the beach?"
> 
> Why is "come" used there if neither the speaker nor the listener are at the beach when the speaker's is inviting the listener to go to the beach with them? To my knowledge, we use _come_ to describe movement between the speaker and listener, and movement from another place to the place where the speaker or listener is, but none of them are at the beach.



The idea of "movement" is not the whole story. This is about _deixis_ and _deictic center_. For our purposes, _deictic center_ is a common point of reference, according to which "relative positions" are established. In "come to my house so we can talk" and "go to my house so we can talk," the deictic center is "my house." In terms of relative positions, in "come to my house so we can talk," the speaker is at the deictic center and the addressee is not, so the addressee is the one who moves toward the deictic center. By contrast, in "go to my house so we can talk" neither the speaker nor the addressee are at the deictic center, so they both move toward "my house" (the common point of reference).

Your example is more complex. It's understood that in _Will you *come* to the beach with us?_ "the beach" is the deictic center/point of reference. It's also understood that neither the speaker nor the addressee are _actually_ at the beach at the time the question is posed. However, if the speaker is _close enough_ to the beach (maybe the speaker can see the beach from a window in his apartment), the idea of being "near" the beach is pragmatically equivalent to being "at" the beach. For all practical purposes, the speaker includes himself in the point of reference. That's why he uses "come." Of course, the speaker doesn't have to be physically close enough to the beach to use "come;" having a notion of "close to the beach" in his mind is good enough, _linguistically_, to use "Will you come to the beach with us?"

_Will you *go* to the beach with us?_ suggests that neither speaker nor addressee are at the deictic center, so they both "move" toward the common point of reference/the beach.


----------



## Andygc

gabriel001234 said:


> It was about the logic behind using one or the other.


Yes, I know, which is why I wrote





Andygc said:


> There is no logic behind it.


The logic that SevenDays describes could, perhaps, be classed as a _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy - the usage of "come with" and "go with" became established in English long before anybody thought to explain it. I doubt there were many grammarians studying English in the 14th century.


SevenDays said:


> However, if the speaker is _close enough_ to the beach (maybe the speaker can see the beach from a window in his apartment), the idea of being "near" the beach is pragmatically equivalent to being "at" the beach. For all practical purposes, the speaker includes himself in the point of reference. That's why he uses "come."


That is certainly fallacious logic. It would be perfectly normal for me to say "We are going to Auckland next winter. Do you want to come with us?" I live in Devon, some 11,500 miles from Auckland - I'd have to leave the planet to be less near to my destination.


----------



## se16teddy

A bee can fly without being able to explain how it does so. This does not mean that the mechanism is inexplicable, and that any explanation is a fallacy.

We use _come_ and_ go_ in an established pattern without being able to explain what the pattern is. This does not mean that the pattern is inexplicable, and that any explanation is a fallacy.

Of course, grammatical concepts are often tricky to explain in words. Our language was not developed to explain itself. It has to be adapted to do so, sometimes in a way that appears complex. But if no native speaker has any problem is using "come" and "go", it seems to me obvious that the complexity is illusory: it is not that the grammar is complex; it is just that our language has to be twisted - fancy words like "deictic" added - to explain it.

SevenDays' point is that the "deictic centre" need not be anywhere near the speaker or the audience.


----------



## Andygc

SevenDays specifically referred to nearness when discussing the use of "come with". My example of normal usage demonstrated that an explanation based on "nearness" is fallacious. I cannot see that I in Devon can have any concept of being "close to" Auckland - and I can assure you that I do not.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

The problem with the Quora poster is that if I didn't know what I was talking about I would be seriously misled by her insistence that 'come' means 'come here', to where the speaker is. It does not. By ignoring that we are talking about '_come with_', 'accompany', not simply 'come', the pivotal point she does touch upon, about the speaker's perspective, loses its force.

'Come with us to the beach' doesn't necessarily mean make the journey to the beach with us. The invitation is as much about being a member of the party at the beach as about the logistics of getting there.


----------



## gabriel001234

Hermione Golightly said:


> The problem with the Quora poster is that if I didn't know what I was talking about I would be seriously misled by her insistence that 'come' means 'come here', to where the speaker is. It does not. By ignoring that we are talking about '_come with_', 'accompany', not simply 'come', the pivotal point she does touch upon, about the speaker's perspective, loses its force.
> 
> 'Come with us to the beach' doesn't necessarily mean make the journey to the beach with us. The invitation is as much about being a member of the party at the beach as about the logistics of getting there.


She didn't say that "come" means "come here". She said that "come" involves moving towards something, and the distinction is all in our point of view.

One of the examples she gave:

“I wish you could come (toward me) with me"

Come doesn't mean "come here" in that sentence. It indicates that the listener's movement is associated with the speaker, that is, the listener goes wherever the speaker goes since they travel (or at least would travel if that actually happened) together (the listener accompanies the speaker).


Also, this his HER way of understanding it. It's based on her own experience. She is a native speaker like many of you here, and what she said isn't necessarily wrong (or right if that's the case).


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> “I wish you could come _(toward me)_ with me"


I interpret 'toward me' as 'here', 'to where I am'.
As others have pointed out,  there's no implication of direction in come with.
That would be 'come to/toward me'.

I have no idea why she presents the matter in that way.
Any of us can be 'wrong' of course and we can have differing understandings. The main thing is whatever helps the learner to use the language in a way that will be understood. If her comments help you, all well and good. I have the impression that her misleading comments have not helped you.


----------



## gabriel001234

Hermione Golightly said:


> I interpret 'toward me' as 'here', 'to where I am'.
> As others have pointed out,  there's no implication of direction in come with.
> That would be 'come to/toward me'.
> 
> I have no idea why she presents the matter in that way.
> Any of us can be 'wrong' of course and we can have differing understandings. The main thing is whatever helps the learner to use the language in a way that will be understood. If her comments help you, all well and good.



I'm just trying to say that _come_ already conveys the meaning of "toward something/someone".

Here are some guides that deal with that topic:

Come or go ? - English Grammar Today - Cambridge Dictionary
Easily Confused Words: Come and Go, by Dennis Oliver - Free English Grammar Lessons
How to Use Go or Come

All of them talk about _come_ being used to indicate movement in the direction of the speaker.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

_We are talking about '*come with*'._ I don't need to be taught my language.


----------



## gabriel001234

Hermione Golightly said:


> We are talking about 'come with'. I don't need to be taught my language.


I'm not trying to teach you your own language. I just posted some links to guides that share the same point of view of the poster on Quora (come meaning "move toward something").


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I haven't enough of my life left for this sort of thing.
Why not give us some context examples? Let's make it real.

You call me up in London and invite me to go Paris with you next weekend.
You live in Nice in the south of France.
You: I'm - to Paris next weekend. Will you - with me?
Me: Sure! I'd love to - to Paris again.
You: Good! Well, -  to Nice, so we can - together.
Me: You want me to come to Nice? Are you kidding?
You: That's what I said, isn't it. I asked you to come with me, so you have to - to me first, so we can - together.


----------



## gabriel001234

Hermione Golightly said:


> I haven't enough of my life left for this sort of thing.
> Why not give us some context examples? Let's make it real.




Person 1: I'm going to the park. Are you coming with me?
Person 2: I would come with you, but I need to go to my aunt's house. Thanks for inviting me, though.


----------



## Andygc

gabriel001234 said:


> I'm not trying to teach you your own language. I just posted some links to guides that share the same point of view of the poster on Quora (come meaning "move toward something").


But you are completely missing the point. This thread started with a question about "*come with*". There is *no* relative movement between the speaker and the person spoken to. "Will you come with me?" has a similar meaning to "Will you accompany me?" Discussions of "come and "go" are not directly relevant when discussing "come with" and "go with".

Cross posted.
Person 2: I would *go* with you, but I need to go to my aunt's house. Thanks for inviting me, though.
Is just as likely, if not rather more likely, in that specific context.


----------



## gabriel001234

Andygc said:


> But you are completely missing the point. This thread started with a question about "*come with*". There is *no* relative movement between the speaker and the person spoken to. "Will you come with me?" has a similar meaning to "Will you accompany me?" Discussions of "come and "go" are not directly relevant when discussing "come with" and "go with".
> 
> Cross posted.
> Person 2: I would *go* with you, but I need to go to my aunt's house. Thanks for inviting me, though.
> Is just as likely, if not rather more likely, in that specific context.



I read that if someone says "Come with me", I should reply "I'll come with you" instead of "I'll go with you". Is that information correct?


----------



## gabriel001234

Andygc said:


> But you are completely missing the point. This thread started with a question about "*come with*". There is *no* relative movement between the speaker and the person spoken to. "Will you come with me?" has a similar meaning to "Will you accompany me?" Discussions of "come and "go" are not directly relevant when discussing "come with" and "go with".
> 
> Cross posted.
> Person 2: I would *go* with you, but I need to go to my aunt's house. Thanks for inviting me, though.
> Is just as likely, if not rather more likely, in that specific context.


Also, some posters on Quora said they would reply "I will come with you...".


Edit:

(SOURCE: EnglishGrammar)
Come with
Come with can be used to talk about joining a movement of the speaker’s or listener’s.

We are going to the park. Would you like to come with us? (NOT Would you like to go with us?)
May I come with you? (NOT May I go with you?)


----------



## Andygc

gabriel001234 said:


> I read that if someone says "Come with me", I should reply "I'll come with you" instead of "I'll go with you". Is that information correct?


No. There is no such rule.

This, to me, is a perfectly normal exchange: "Will you come to London with me?" "Yes, I'll go with you."

And the "rules" you quote from EnglishGrammar (whatever that is) are equally wrong.


----------



## gabriel001234

Andygc said:


> No. There is no such rule.
> 
> This, to me, is a perfectly normal exchange: "Will you come to London with me?" "Yes, I'll go with you."
> 
> And the "rules" you quote from EnglishGrammar (whatever that is) are equally wrong.


 
But is that at least acceptable, or is it wrong to use "come" instead of "go" in that case? Some people (not only on Quora but also on this forum) say that using "come" in that case is perfectly fine.

Source of those "rules": EnglishGrammar

Edit:

I don't know if it has something do with the topic that is being discussed here, but there is a book named
"If You Leave Me, Can I Come with You?: Daily Meditations for Codependents and Al-Anons . . . with a Sense of Humor". It's an example of the usage of "come with" instead of "go with".


----------



## Andygc

No, I'm not saying "come" is wrong. My point is that there is no clear rule. In my London example I find "go" the natural way to say it, and I find "come" awkward. This may be an example where SevenDays's 'deictic centre' is relevant.
Will you come with me? "Come with" means "accompany".
I'll go with you. I perceive London as remote.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Hermione Golightly said:


> You: I'm - to Paris next weekend. Will you - with me?
> Me: Sure! I'd love to - to Paris again.


Sorry I just wanted to know about these two sentences from your dialogue. Are both 'come' and 'go' correct to use there?

You: I'm going to Paris next weekend. Will you come/go with me?
Me: Sure! I'd love to come/go to Paris again.


----------



## SevenDays

se16teddy said:


> ....
> SevenDays' point is that the "deictic centre" need not be anywhere near the speaker or the audience.



Exactly. More than that, the _deictic center_ and positions _relative_ to the deictic center can shift, based on factors such as context/perspective/intent/etc.



Andygc said:


> SevenDays specifically referred to nearness when discussing the use of "come with". My example of normal usage demonstrated that an explanation based on "nearness" is fallacious. I cannot see that I in Devon can have any concept of being "close to" Auckland - and I can assure you that I do not.



There’s no fallacy.

I used “nearness” simply as an illustration, not as a determining factor. In your example _We are going to Auckland next winter_, “Auckland” is the deictic center, and it's understood that neither the speaker nor the addressee is there***. In saying _Do you want to *come* with us? _the speaker shifts his position _relative_ to the deictic center, so that now the speaker's position and the deictic center are, as conceived by the speaker, one and the same (deictically speaking).

So, no, _nearness_ isn’t the issue here. You don’t have to _be_ at or _near_ the deictic center to use “come;” putting yourself there mentally is good enough for it. This is particularly true when the speaker has some particular connection to the deictic center, in which case _come _is the preferred choice. For example, if I live in Auckland but I happen to be in New York for business, I’m more likely to say _Mary is *coming* to Auckland but I’m stuck here in NY _rather than _Mary is going to Auckland but I’m stuck here in NY._

If _deixis_ proves unsatisfying as an answer, you can always turn to _semantics_ or _pragmatics _for an explanation.

Semantically, in some analysis, _go_ suggests "movement" whereas _come_ encodes the notion of "arrival" at the destination. Accordingly, *go* (_Do you want to *go* with us?_) means "movement toward the destination Auckland," while *come* (_Do you want to *come* with us?_) shifts attention to the idea of _arrival_ at the destination.

Pragmatically, _come_ and _go_ are not always opposite, and it would be fallacious to think that they always are. Having established that neither the speaker nor the addressee is in Auckland, _come _and _go_ are pragmatically equivalent: _We are going to Auckland. Do you want to *come*/*go* with us?_ From a purely pragmatic point of view, it makes no sense to ask about the difference between _come_ and _go_ because in this context there's no difference; _come_ and _go_ are two sides of the same (pragmatic) coin.

-----

* Sometimes, there’s ambiguity. In saying _Hey Bill, we are *coming *to Auckland next winter, _the likely assumption is that Bill is in Auckland (the deictic center). But in _Hey Bill, we are *going *to Auckland next winter, _that assumption becomes less likely.


----------



## Andygc

If you meant nearness to be an illustration you should have made that clear. Your previous post clearly indicated that it was a determining factor.





SevenDays said:


> For example, if I live in Auckland but I happen to be in New York for business, I’m more likely to say _Mary is *coming* to Auckland but I’m stuck here in NY _rather than _Mary is going to Auckland but I’m stuck here in NY._


No. If Mary is in New York and is leaving without me then I would be extremely unlikely to say "coming" in the context of those sentences. The use of "coming" would be influenced by the circumstances and to whom I was speaking. There are numerous factors which could affect the choice of word, but the situation you present makes "coming" implausible.

Edit.
But this is, of course, no longer a discussion of "come with" and "go with" and so is wandering away from the topic of this thread.

And nobody suggested that come and go are opposite in the context of this thread.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Phoebe1200 said:


> You: I'm going to Paris next weekend. Will you come/go with me?
> Me: Sure! I'd love to go to Paris again.


So in the second sentence only "go" is correct since neither of them are in Paris, right?

But what about the first "Will you come/go with me?" I think both "come" and "go" work, right?


----------



## Andygc

Phoebe1200 said:


> t what about the first "Will you come/go with me?" I think both "come" and "go" work, right?


Yes, they do.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Andygc said:


> Yes, they do.


Thank you for your reply. 


Phoebe1200 said:


> So in the second sentence only "go" is correct since neither of them are in Paris, right?


Was I right about this too?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Yes, you are right about 'go' being correct. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you earlier.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Hermione Golightly said:


> Yes, you are right about 'go' being correct. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you earlier.


Oh, it's OK.Thank you for replying.


----------

