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

[Laurence Horn]

At 10:06 PM -0400 8/29/04, Wilson Gray wrote:
>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

right--I know it from my four years spent in Madison, WI.  It's well
known in the upper Midwest, and it is indeed usually assumed in those
parts to be of German substrate influence, as Barbara notes.  We used
to use this construction in dialect surveys for our intro classes
there.

And in response to Mark, above:

2.  We're talking about object of a preposition in both cases, aren't
we? (get over ___)

3.  Arguably, the "get over ___" would equally be idiomatic.

That still leaves the difference in #1.  I'm not saying the
constructions are the same, and I am playing devil's advocate, but
the two "deletions" wouldn't be all *that* unparallel.

Larry