Come with; was Re: Natural-Born Lover : Words

[Wilson Gray]

On Aug 29, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Barbara Need wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Barbara Need <nee1 at MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
> Subject:      Come with; was Re: Natural-Born Lover : Words
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>> I said:
>>
>>> I understood it, but I share Wilson's desire for support for the
>>> hypothesis.
>>> This seems to me to be very, very far from the implicit 2s. SUBJECT
>>> of an
>>> imperative. Are there any known such cases?
>>
>> Larry answered:
>>
>>>>>
>> %Can I come with? [when it's clear that the addressee is the missing
>> object]
>>
>> Of course, this isn't specifically "YOU understood", but any object
>> in the appropriate context (for the appropriate dialect).
>>         <<<
>>
>> Distinguo. In addition to your "of course",
>>
>> 2. That is the object of a preposition, not of the verb.
>>
>> 3. This collocation, "come with", is idiomatic; the construction is
>> not
>> productive.
>>
>> -- Mark, still waiting for evidence
>
> How widespread is come with? I first encountered it in Milwaukee
> (1982) and then heard it in Chicago (after 1984). I assumed (and was
> told) it was related to the German Kommst du mit?
>
> Barbara

I first heard it in 1969 in Davis, CA, from a friend who said that her
family was from somewhere in Minnesota. I either was told or read
somewhere the same explanation that you were given. On the other hand,
I have friends from Minnesota that I've never heard use it. My wife,
also Barbara, BTW, is from the Wyoming Valley region of NE
Pennsylvania. I've heard my parents-in-law use it from time to time. In
any case, even the people that I know who use it use it only rarely.
It's like something that's in the process of dying out. I've never
heard it used by anyone who is now under the age of 65.

-Wilson Gray