5

I’d rather come with you.

I'd rather go with you.

Is there any difference between them?

I think 'come' has the opposite meaning of 'go'

gotube
  • 49,596
  • 7
  • 72
  • 154
gomadeng
  • 4,306
  • 13
  • 38

3 Answers3

13

In that context with "with", the meanings are just about the same. There are a couple slight differences between the two.

First, "come" suggests joining that person on the trip, as if it's the other person's trip, and the speaker wishes to join that trip, and they'll travel together as a unit.

"Go" doesn't have this nuance, and merely means travel together. It could mean joining the group and travelling as a unit, or it could mean the speaker following the other person without their assent.

Second, "come" implies that they will travel to some place together, while "go" merely means they will leave at the same time, but possibly not go the same way afterwards. For instance, if the two people are leaving a party at the same time, "come" means they'll travel together for at least some part of the trip, but "go" only means they'll leave at the same time.

gotube
  • 49,596
  • 7
  • 72
  • 154
  • 8
    The OP didn't ask about the general differences between "go" and "come", but rather about "go with you" vs. "come with you", which are nearly identical. You've assumed the OP has no idea what the difference is between them normally, even though the question states, "I think 'come' has the opposite meaning of 'go'", which means this is a question about the nuance of these two sentences. – gotube May 30 '23 at 07:59
  • I disagree with your fourth paragraph. Come and go have the same amount of implication regarding the distance travelled. You can say "I'll come with you" intending "to the exit" and also say the same with "go" – The Z May 30 '23 at 15:02
  • @TheZ I'm not following your example. How does that differ from what they're describing? – wjandrea May 30 '23 at 15:07
  • @wjandrea I mean that come and go have the same implication of "travel together for at least some part of the trip." I don't think it's possible to use "go with" without meaning travel together for at least a part of the trip (even if at least to the exit). Maybe my example wasn't the best at illustrating the point. – The Z May 30 '23 at 15:40
  • No, go with you and come with you are not nearly identical. Scenario: A mother is standing next to her car. There is a second car, too and she says to her son: "Do you want to come with me or do you prefer to go with your Uncle Harry?". [come with me the speaker, go away from the speaker to the other car]. Here, the mother would never say come with Uncle Harry in this situation. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 17:09
  • @Lambie You didn't use "with you" in both sentences. The object of "with" isn't even the same person in your examples, so of course they don't sound like they have the same meaning. Show me a context where the exact words "go with you" and "come with you" have clearly different meanings. – gotube May 30 '23 at 18:34
  • I'd rather go with you. [to the party or there] I'd rather come with you. [here again or in the car, for example]. Don't forget the idiomatic expression, which is not for nothing: Their comings and goings at all hours were absolutely incredible. If there were no difference, there would be no idiomatic expression. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 19:05
  • @Lambie Your examples don't show any difference, just two contexts where different destinations are understood. If someone says, "I'd rather go/come with you" without specifying the destination, then it must be understood. Except for the case where the destination is the place both speakers are in, "go with you" and "come with you" mean the same thing. Also, nobody here is arguing that there's no difference ever between "go" and "come" in general. – gotube May 30 '23 at 19:35
  • Of course, "I'd rather go/come with you" would always imply all sorts of things, all of which I have explained at length and several times. There is always context which is stated or implied and you criticized because I didn't use "with you" in both. But then I did, and you're still complaining. :) – Lambie May 30 '23 at 20:09
1

The words "come" and "go" are two sides of the same coin.

When you come somewhere, you also go there. When you go somewhere, you also come there.

"Come" just means "go" but when you think of the destination as being close either literally or figuratively to either the subject, speaker, or audience.

So, if you are at home, you might say "He came home," but if you are at school, you would say "He went home."

If you are speaking to someone at home, you would say "I will come home." If you are at work and speaking to someone at their work, you would say "I will go home."

The phrases "I will come with you" and "I will go with you" mean about the same. They mean you intend to leave or start a journey with someone.

As for "I will go with you," that is self-explanatory. The object of the going is "somewhere." It means "I will go (somewhere) with you." Sometimes it just means "to the exit."

As for "I will come with you," that is a bit more confusing. In my experience, this is usually meant as a shortening of "I will come to you and go with you." The intention is that the person whom you are joining is either literally or figuratively between you and the destination, so you first come to him (and he is closer to both you, the speaker, and him, the audience) before going to the destination (which is further).

In common parlance, when you say either phrase, it is because the person is somehow closer to the destination. So, even if "go with you" does not have this implication in the words, it is usually said when the implication exists through context anyway.

But, you can think up scenarios when the speaker is closer to the destination and is forced to use "go with you" instead of "come with you."

For example, if a person is leaving and he only has room in his car for one person and two people want to go with him, he can only say "I'd rather go with you." That is because he is (figuratively) closer to the destination than his audience.

The Z
  • 201
  • 1
  • 4
  • Come does not mean go! If you say to someone, "Why did you come here today?" that is certainly NOT "Why did you go here today?". – Lambie May 30 '23 at 16:52
  • 2
    @Lambie I didn't say it just means go. I said it means go with the additional implication that "you think of the destination as being close either literally or figuratively to either the subject, speaker, or audience." – The Z May 30 '23 at 17:29
  • For example, if a person is leaving and he only has room in his car for one person and two people want to go with him, he can only say "I'd rather go with you." That doesn't make much sense to me. I'd rather you come with me. – Lambie Sep 04 '23 at 14:41
-6

go away from where where a speaker is.

  • We went to school today. [we are not at that location]
  • We came to school today. [We are at that location.]
  • They went to school today. [They are not in that location.]

Come to a place where the speaker is.

"I want you to come home early, Johnny." [on the phone to her son from home] "I want you to go home early, Johnny." [on the phone to her son while not at home]

We are at school. We came here this morning.

You and I are at my house and I say to you: "I'd rather come here next time with you. Not alone."

We are not at your house. We are in the park and I say to you: "I'd rather go to your house with you and not stay here."

Scenario: A mother is standing next to her car. There is a second car, too and she says to her son: "Do you want to come with me or do you prefer to go with your Uncle Harry?". [come with me the speaker, go away from the speaker to the other car]. Here, the mother would never say come with Uncle Harry in this situation.

Scenario: The mother and son are at the park, and she says: "I want you to come home early tonight."

Why does that work? Because the mother is a synecdoche for home. It's as if her person was a home and the son is coming to it.

Lambie
  • 44,522
  • 4
  • 33
  • 88
  • 7
    The question seems more likely to be asking about a potential future trip, in which case the meanings are very similar. Imagine Mum and Johnny are both at home, Mum says "I'm going to the shops now, you should stay here and do your homework." Johnny says "I'd rather come/go with you." – Showsni May 30 '23 at 02:52
  • 4
    Even in general terms, this is not true. Unlike some languages, English does not distinguish come/go by the speaker’s actual location, but by the location of the subject at the moment which is notionally emphasised in the utterance. In ‘I want you to come/go home early’, either verb can be used regardless of whether the speaker is currently at school, depending on whether Johnny’s current location (at home) or his in-context location (at his friend’s house) is emphasised. It’s the context of the narrative, not the speaker’s location, that determines which to use. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 30 '23 at 08:11
  • 3
    Correction: that should have said “but by the location of the speaker or the subject” (in actual fact, it can be another person in the discourse as well – ‘he wants me to come over’ – but speaker and subject are the most common). A brief, but good, description of how these verbs actually work is given in CGEL, 1550–1553. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 30 '23 at 08:21
  • @JanusBahsJacquet "He wants me to go over to his house. But, hey Mabel, maybe you want him to come over to ours?" [They are at home or imagine they are] Note: "He wants me to come over" is not actually an accurate use of come. By the way, CGEL does grammar not good usage. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 16:51
  • This is wrong: ‘I want you to come/go home early’ would not be either verb. "I want you to come home early" means the person is at home speaking to the other OR the speaker and interlocutor share the same home space in their minds such that the speaker is the "location of the home". Of course, if they are not at home, it can also be: go home as the speaker is thinking away from the place where the interlocutor is. If the speaker considers where the interlocutor is, is away from home and the speaker is away from home {physically or mentally}, it's go home. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 16:58
  • 1
    “He wants me to come over” is a perfectly good, normal, accurate usage of come. Any native speaker will tell you this, and anyone pretending it isn’t is not a competent speaker. And it can absolutely be “I want you to come home early tonight” even if both the speaker and the addressee are not currently at home. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 30 '23 at 17:13
  • @JanusBahsJacquet The reason that "I want you to come home early tonight" works even if both speaker and interlocutor are *away from home* is because the speaker is a synecdoche for home, which I already explained. It's the mother or father or someone who lives in the same house. Yes, can I understand "come over" like that? Sure, but I would not use it like that. I would say: He wants me to go over to his house. go/come is like bring/take despite the ubiquitous misuse of bring for take. "They brought me to school this morning" for "They took me to school this morning". – Lambie May 30 '23 at 17:22
  • And by the way I am a dyed-in-the-wool native speaker of English. Thank you. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 17:23
  • 2
    Come/go are like bring/take in that both pairs consist of a source-oriented verb and a goal-oriented verb, yes. But your claim that the entire Anglosphere is ‘misusing’ them (and have been for centuries) by using them exactly as English grammars describe is bizarre. It is not misuse. You may not use them like that, but everyone else does, because that’s how they work in English. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 30 '23 at 17:25
  • 2
    "I can drop this package off at your house." "Oh, sorry, I'm not actually home right now, I went to the office today." Neither of the speakers are at the house. – user3067860 May 30 '23 at 17:27
  • @JanusBahsJacquet But this is not a *grammar question. It's a pragmatics question, a question of meaning, basic semantics. No one is disputing the grammar*. What an idea. Tons of things are grammatical while pragmatically and semantically off. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 17:31
  • 1
    Yes, it’s a pragmatics question, and it is perfectly fine, grammatically, pragmatically, semantically and in every other way to use come/go in the way I have described above. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 30 '23 at 17:34
  • 4
    Language and meaning are descriptive of people's usage. They aren't prescriptions. If English speakers commonly say something that seems to violate a rule, it's the rule that is a bad description of English, not the speakers that are wrong. – The Z May 30 '23 at 17:35
  • @user3067860 You must be trying to introduce some levity. Of course, "I went to the office today" i,e, away from where I am now. Ok, I'm done here. :) – Lambie May 30 '23 at 17:35
  • @TheZ There's a difference between being accurate and being prescriptivist. The Spanish have a really rude way of saying I could care less about that. The problem is that many linguists have two issues: Not listening well and misunderstanding what prescriptivism really is. This question is not about grammar. It is about basic meaning. And the fact one thing can be understood as another in some cases. But that's not the way to answer the OP's question, is it? – Lambie May 30 '23 at 17:39
  • English speakers actually say all sorts of things. I criticize no one's actual speech. However, when I am asked about the difference between go and come, I feel obliged to say what they are. And not just reproduce colloquial speech. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 17:41
  • @Lambie I can't be at home to receive the package, because I went to the office--I am in the office now. I "went" from home. – user3067860 May 30 '23 at 17:41
  • @user3067860 According to you, you are at the office. ERGO: Speaker 1: "I can drop this package off at your house." Interlocutor: "Oh, sorry, I'm not actually home right now, I came to the office today." That is very basic here. went just doesn't work there. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 17:44
  • 2
    @Lambie No, I would never say came there, because no one in that conversation cares about my position in relation to the office, they only care about my position in relation to home. – user3067860 May 30 '23 at 17:54
  • @user3067860 If you are at the office, and you don't say came to the office to anyone (like on the phone or to a colleague). It sounds really, really weird. It's just not right in this case at all. Ask anybody. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 17:59
  • @JanusBahsJacquet "Unlike some languages, English does not distinguish come/go by the speaker’s actual location, but by the location of the subject at the moment which is notionally emphasised in the utterance.". It's the speaker location, real or in the mind, and directionality of the action. By the way, aller/venir//go/come//ir/venir//ir/vir Portuguese, French and Spanish for go and come. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 18:08
  • @Showsni Mum says "I'm going to the shops now, you should stay here and do your homework." Johnny says "I'd rather come/go with you." The mother is going away from where she is and Johnny is coming with her on foot or in the car or on the bus etc. – Lambie May 30 '23 at 19:11
  • @user3067860 For the record, you use of "went to the office" when you are at the office talking to someone just silly. Only if you were elsewhere. The person who agreed with you just doesn't understand usage. I really should not fall for these traps. – Lambie May 31 '23 at 15:23
  • 2
    I’m the person who agreed, and I understand usage perfectly fine. Using went in the context given is the only natural choice. Using came would sound completely bizarre. As always, you claim that your completely idiosyncratic usage is the only valid one, despite everyone else telling you you’re wrong. Well, I’ll reiterate it: you’re wrong. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jun 02 '23 at 23:41
  • a. Come indicates motion towards {the location at the utterance time, the location at the event time, or the “home base”} of {the speaker or the addressee}. b. Go indicates motion toward a location distinct from the speaker’s location at the utterance time. Fillmore in http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/viewFile/3466/3169 AND https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv135.shtml – Lambie Jun 03 '23 at 14:22
  • Of course, as I have said "come over" is understood and fine colloquially but it is definitely not what linguists describe. And this is not at all bizarre: Listen, John, Terry wants me to go over there and help him with inventory. As for natural choice, that is a matter of opinion. //Also, you say you agree with user3067860 (right?), where exactly? – Lambie Jun 03 '23 at 14:32
  • @JanusBahsJacquet You are imputing things to me that are not true. Please do not do that and also stop with the moralism. – Lambie Jun 27 '23 at 16:21
  • Good lord, this was an adventure! I would venture to say that this comment thread adventured beyond the OP's interests, but the most relevant bit here is "You wouldn't say 'come with Uncle Harry.'" There's a lot of talk in the comments about "home," but maybe it can be generalized even more broadly: "come" connotes arrival or companionship; "go" connotes departure or separation. Since the OP used "with me," there's very slight connotational difference: "come with me" emphasizes "remain in my company," while "go with me" emphasizes "leave this place along with me." – Andy Bonner Nov 27 '23 at 17:20
  • @AndyBonner Yes, to your connotional difference: that is exactly what my answer addresses. You know I had a English lady who is well known around here read this and she could not believe the five downvotes. Did you notice this user:
    user3067860 She's at the office and she would say: "I went to the office" instead of "I came to the office". And that's the kind of poster who downvoted me. Unbelievable.     – Lambie Nov 27 '23 at 17:41