# Why don't you invite her in, save leaving her sitting there?



## JungKim

In the movie 'Three Billboards', Robbie says this about his father's girlfriend Penelope, who's waiting outside:


> Why don't you invite her in, *save *leaving her sitting there?


What does 'save' here mean?
The dictionary definition of 'except' doesn't make sense here, I'm afraid.


----------



## velisarius

It means "so she doesn't have to sit out there".  "Save" can be used as in "save someone the inconvenience or trouble of doing something".


----------



## lingobingo

It’s used in the sense of “avoid”.

_Let’s order a takeaway, to save having to cook tonight._


----------



## JungKim

So it's a verb! So I guess it means:
"Why don't you invite her in, *save *her from sitting there?"
Right?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes. It’s rather oddly put, but that’s the gist of it.


----------



## Orble

It is an informal sentence too in which unnecessary words are “left out”. If we put them back in, and stretch the sentence out very unnaturally, the meaning may be clearer:

Why don’t you invite her to come inside, to save her from the boredom/loneliness of being left sitting outside alone.


----------



## velisarius

In this particular sentence, it seems to mean "instead" - _instead of leaving her sitting there._ I looked at the text here, and the speaker doesn't seem to have any sympathy for the woman:
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

 Perhaps it's dialect.


----------



## lingobingo

I thought that was pretty-much what we were saying? It’s what I meant, anyway. (I shouldn’t have agreed so readily with #4.)

_Why don't you invite her in, save leaving her sitting there?_​
It’s not the woman’s inconvenience that’s being saved/avoided, but that of the person being addressed.


----------



## Orble

It certainly does have a sense of “instead” (very much like “to avoid” as Lingobingo said). 
The sympathy is feigned, perhaps, or sarcastic. But the sentence, on the surface at least, can only be expressing some mild concern for her. 
Its certainly not dialect. This usage is very common in my experience and apparently in Lingobingo’s too.


----------



## velisarius

"Invite her in, it'll save her sitting out there in the car" - that's familiar to me.

"Save leaving her sitting there" is a little bit strange to my ears though. (It will save you/us the trouble of leaving her sitting there?)


----------



## Orble

lingobingo said:


> It’s not the woman’s inconvenience that’s being saved/avoided, but that of the person being addressed.



I beg to differ regarding this interpretation. What inconvenience does this person suffer? Surely there is more inconvenience bringing the person in and “entertaining” her in the house? Doesn’t “her sitting there” put the focus on her welfare?

This usage pattern leaves out words that tell you who “is saved”. It is sometimes one party and sometimes another. Only context tells you who it is. Your example sentence is ambiguous without context,

Let’s get a takeaway, (to) save (you from) having to cook. (You are the cook of the household)
Let’s get a takeaway, (to) save (me from) having to cook. (I am the cook of the household)


----------



## lingobingo

_*Why don't you invite her in, save leaving her sitting there?*_
*
Save* only _suggests_ inconvenience/trouble, which doesn’t have to be taken literally anyway. Nor is there any pressing need to read inconvenience into it at all, since *save* can be understood as meaning *avoid* rather than “save someone the trouble of” (see 6. here: save_1 verb - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com).

But the main clue is in the word “leaving”.  Who is leaving her sitting there if she’s not asked in? It’s either whoever the remark is being addressed to, or just a generalised “anyone”. It’s really not important.


----------



## Orble

Your points are each valid Lingobingo. I remain of the view though that only the context here allows you todecide “who is saved” (“who avoids a bad thing”) rather than it being inherent in the sentence structure itself.

We have each reached different decisions in our understanding of the context, and that’s fine. One way for me to bring myself much closer to agreeing with your interpretation is to decide the following from the context, although really this is a third interpretation:

The speaker is saved from (avoids) the feeling that he is inhospitable/unkind in leaving her to suffer the mild hardship of the car.​


----------



## JungKim

lingobingo said:


> Yes. It’s rather oddly put, but that’s the gist of it.


What is it that's "rather oddly put"? The OP's sentence or my paraphrase?


----------



## Copyright

JungKim said:


> So it's a verb! So I guess it means:
> "Why don't you invite her in, *save *her from sitting there?"
> Right?





lingobingo said:


> Yes. It’s rather oddly put, but that’s the gist of it.





JungKim said:


> What is it that's "rather oddly put"? The OP's sentence or my paraphrase?


Your sentence just before lingobingo's comment (quoted above): "Why don't you invite her in, *save *her from sitting there?"

Personally, I read "save" as "rather than."
_
Why don't you invite her in, *rather than *leaving her sitting there?_


----------



## JungKim

velisarius said:


> I looked at the text here, and the speaker doesn't seem to have any sympathy for the woman:
> Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri


Could you tell me why you think the speaker doesn't seem to have any sympathy for her?

I've watch the clip, and the speaker, Robbie, is talking to his father, Charlie, who's divorced his mother. And the woman Robbie's talking about is Charlie's girlfriend, who's waiting out in Charlie's car while Charlie is in the house talking to his ex-wife (Robbie's mother). 

So I do think Robbie's got some sympathy for the girl.


----------



## JungKim

Copyright said:


> Personally, I read "save" as "rather than."
> _
> Why don't you invite her in, *rather than *leaving her sitting there?_


So do you think it's not a verb but a preposition?


----------



## Copyright

JungKim said:


> So I do think Robbie's got some sympathy for the girl.


I agree. Thanks for the context.


----------



## velisarius

JungKim said:


> So I do think Robbie's got some sympathy for the girl.


Yes, I had another look and learned that the young girl outside in the car is Robbie's father's new girl-friend, but he isn't hostile towards her.

Even so, the sentence reads very well if you take "save" to mean "rather than" or " instead of". I don't see why this can't be a local expression or part of Robbie's idiolect.


----------



## london calling

velisarius said:


> In this particular sentence, it seems to mean "instead" - _instead of leaving her sitting there._


That's how I read it too.


----------



## Edinburgher

I think the original is poorly punctuated.  It would make more sense as:
_Why don't you ask her in?  (It would) save leaving her sitting there._


----------



## JungKim

velisarius said:


> Yes, I had another look and learned that the young girl outside in the car is Robbie's father's new girl-friend, but he isn't hostile towards her.
> 
> Even so, the sentence reads very well if you take "save" to mean "rather than" or " instead of". I don't see why this can't be a local expression or part of Robbie's idiolect.





london calling said:


> That's how I read it too.



Just out of curiosity, does "idiolect" include misusing a word (as here) or making grammatical mistakes even? (Assuming that using 'save' to mean 'instead of' would be considered wrong if uttered by a non-native speaker of English.)


----------



## velisarius

If they do it consistently, I'd say it was part of their idiolect. Not that I'm an expert on such things.


----------



## lingobingo

JungKim said:


> What is it that's "rather oddly put"? The OP's sentence or my paraphrase?


I meant the original text — save leaving her sitting there — was oddly put.

But your version in #4 — save her from sitting there — is not a good paraphrase, in my view.

In other words, the save/avoid element is general, rather than referring to a particular person either saving or being saved from something. In effect, it means “rather than” — rather than leave/leaving her sitting there.


Note: This is in reply to #14 and I wrote it before reading the later posts. Evidently I’m agreeing with Copyright and velisarius.


----------



## JungKim

lingobingo said:


> In other words, the save/avoid element is general, rather than referring to a particular person either saving or being saved from something. In effect, it means “rather than” — rather than leave/leaving her sitting there.
> 
> 
> Note: This is in reply to #14 and I wrote it before reading the later posts. Evidently I’m agreeing with Copyright and velisarius.



Then, do you, Copyright, velisarius and london calling all think "save" is a preposition, not a verb?


----------



## Edinburgher

Can you confirm that "Why don't you invite her in, *save *leaving her sitting there?" is what you have heard them say in the movie, as opposed to seen written in  a script?
If so, could it be that *save* represents a mis-hearing of *stev* (a mumbled version of "instead of")?


----------



## lingobingo

I think it IS a verb (infinitive), as I said back in #3: … [to] save/avoid leaving her there

But the construction/meaning is such that the best paraphrase is “rather than leaving her there”.


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> Can you confirm that "Why don't you invite her in, *save *leaving her sitting there?" is what you have heard them say in the movie, as opposed to seen written in  a script?
> If so, could it be that *save* represents a mis-hearing of *stev* (a mumbled version of "instead of")?


I clearly did hear 'save'. And here's the screen play.
Actually, the clip says "... save leaving her sitting out there", "out" being added. (I can't link the clip, though, due to the rules here.)


----------



## JungKim

lingobingo said:


> I think it IS a verb (infinitive), as I said back in #3: … [to] save/avoid leaving her there
> 
> But the construction/meaning is such that the best paraphrase is “rather than leaving her there”.



I don't know how to wrap my head around such an interpretation unless this is what velisarius calls idiolect, in which case I'm afraid it's essentially an incorrect use of the word.


----------



## velisarius

If it's a mistake, it's an unusual one. I'd just call it "an odd turn of phrase", but one that's understandable in context.


----------



## Pertinax

_*Why don't you invite her in, save leaving her sitting there?*_

I took this construction as a deliberately lazy hybrid of a to-infinitive (with elided "to") and an imperative (as in #4).  I might say something like:
_* Why don't you go outside, [to] get some fresh air?*_

The casual omission of "to" turns the purpose-adjunct into an imperative with much the same implied meaning:
_*  Why don't you go outside; get some fresh air?*_

Writing it as separate sentences would not do justice to the stress, since "get" is preceded by only a short pause and is not heavily stressed.

Since any verb may be used in this way, I do not read "save" as a preposition, although save=avoid has much the same meaning as "rather than" or even "beats":
_* Why don't you invite her in; [that] beats leaving her sitting there.*_


----------



## lingobingo

JungKim said:


> I don't know how to wrap my head around such an interpretation unless this is what velisarius calls idiolect, in which case I'm afraid it's essentially an incorrect use of the word.


Informal spoken English is crammed full of arguably “incorrect” uses of every kind. Not least in fictional dialogue in a movie, perhaps.

But however much you might feel the need to sanitise it, the original sentence reads entirely naturally as something a native English-speaker might say. I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if someone said it in my presence.


----------



## Orble

Lingobingo and I may disagree about shades of meaning, but I am with her and with Pertinax in saying this is an entirely natural usage and reasonably common usage, with the “to” omitted in informal conversation.

Some examples, grabbed quickly online, with two of the three omitting the “to”:

Exchange between two vampires in a horror novel published online called “Tuataras”:
Sebastian said, “I think she should be alright now. She just needs plenty of bed rest.”  Errol agreed with a nod. “I think it best we keep her abed here for now, save upsetting her wounds.”

Chat fragment on an Aquarium blog, referring to a sick clown fish:
....but I am at a loss to what to do to help him, save leaving him in the tank...

Fragment from the book, “Death and how to survive it”
She will invariably hold back her tears to save upsetting those around her.​


----------



## JungKim

Thanks, Orble, for the examples. 
Reading your examples, I'm beginning to realize that you've been right all along about this usage being standard.


----------



## velisarius

Orble said:


> Chat fragment on an Aquarium blog, referring to a sick clown fish:
> ....but I am at a loss to what to do to help him, save leaving him in the tank...



So... what does this one mean? It seems to be old-fashioned "save" = except for. That can't be the case in our extract.

I find your other examples normal, Orble. As you say, it's simply omission of the particle " to". But that doesn't work as an interpretation in "save leaving her sitting there".  I think the best paraphrase, in the light of your new examples, would be "in order not to": Invite her in, in order not to leave her sitting there. It isn't exactly the standard paraphrase for "save" or "spare" (someone the trouble of).


----------



## Copyright

Edinburgher said:


> Can you confirm that "Why don't you invite her in, *save *leaving her sitting there?" is what you have heard them say in the movie, as opposed to seen written in  a script?


Yes, that's what the son says. (Just confirming what JungKim said in post 28.)


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> In the movie 'Three Billboards', Robbie says this about his father's girlfriend Penelope, who's waiting outside:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you invite her in, *save *leaving her sitting there?
> 
> 
> 
> What does 'save' here mean?
> The dictionary definition of 'except' doesn't make sense here, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

I think it means "avoid", and I think this is asyndeton since I would say:
_
Why don't you invite her in and *save *leaving her sitting there?_

Or better yet:

_Why don't you invite her in and save *having to leave* her sitting there?_


----------



## lingobingo

We seem to have gone full circle here (see #3)… 

But sanitising the construction by adding “and” rather loses the point of the slang usage.


----------



## lentulax

I agree with lingobingo, though not quite as completely as usual - it's certainly very common usage, the fact that it may be equivalent in meaning to 'rather than' doesn't mean it's syntactically the same, it's the verb 'save'='avoid' , all that's happened ( as so often in casual speech) is that some words have been omitted - but I'd say that, rather than 'to', the understood words are usually 'it will, it'll, it would, it'd' : 'I'll run you to the airport myself, it'll save the expense of a taxi' ; 'I'll pick you up at eleven, it'll save waiting hours for a train', etc.  As lingobingo suggests, you can paraphrase the sentence to explain the meaning, but the paraphrases aren't substitutes - if you lose the laziness of the speech (by filling in the elided words, or using other forms such as 'rather than') you're losing a part of the meaning (since the speech habits are part of the created character).


----------



## Forero

lingobingo said:


> We seem to have gone full circle here (see #3)…
> 
> But sanitising the construction by adding “and” rather loses the point of the slang usage.


I don't see anything slangy or unsanitary about asyndeton.

I just meant to explain why it makes sense in a dialog.


----------



## lingobingo

Forero said:


> I don't see anything slangy or unsanitary about asyndeton.


I’m by no means convinced that asyndeton is at all relevant. (We’re talking about very informal dialogue, not literature or rhetoric.) And even if there _is_ a word missing — the addition of which would eliminate the slang/colloquial/regional-or-whatever nature of the expression — who says it’s *and*? As has already been said, it would seem more logical to think of it as *to*, making “save” an infinitive.


----------



## PaulQ

As I see it:
Why don't you invite her in, *save *leaving her sitting there? ->
Why don't you invite her in, _[and thus that action would]_ *save *_[your]_ [leaving her sitting there]?
 .................................................................................................[........gerund phrase.....].


----------



## Forero

lingobingo said:


> I’m by no means convinced that asyndeton is at all relevant. (We’re talking about very informal dialogue, not literature or rhetoric.) And even if there _is_ a word missing — the addition of which would eliminate the slang/colloquial/regional-or-whatever nature of the expression — who says it’s *and*? As has already been said, it would seem more logical to think of it as *to*, making “save” an infinitive.


In my version, _save_ is already an infinitive, just like _invite_. Why don't you save leaving her sitting there and invite her in? (Or "Why don't you save leaving her sitting there, invite her in?")

Nothing formal about that. The comma, or the word "and" essentially means the same as "to" in the original sentence or "by -ing" in the sentence with the clauses the other way around since the relationship between inviting her in and not leaving her where she is is evident without having to embed one clause in the other.


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, I put that badly. Save is already an infinitive full stop. I should have said that adding *to* rather than *and* would provide the nuance of “in order” or “so as” to [save/avoid leaving her out there].


----------

