[Ads-l] WE KEEP US SAFE

[Laurence Horn]

I'm not convinced that it isn't a case of implicit contrast or focus, at
least initially. (Seems like it's become a movement slogan.)  Note these
examples from the web, also with no explicit trigger but where (given the
cleft syntax) there's clearly a contrastive focus involved: it's we (or:
we're the ones), and not someone else

At the end of the day, though, it's we who keep us safe.

Now is the time to make our connections deeper and stronger.Within our
communities, between our communities, between each other. Because at the
end of the day, it's we who keep us safe.

as in these "th-clefts" from Virginia and Rhode Island respectively:

We are tired of having to constantly demand the city to do better, but we
must because we're the ones who keep us safe.

The committee has also supported victims of police violence and their
families, including the brutal assaults on Manton Avenue
<https://upriseri.com/king-st-videos/> and Sayles Street
<https://www.liberationnews.org/providence-ri-police-lock-children-in-van-on-90-degree-day/>.
This support has included mobilizing community members to ensure the
families’ security in the face of white vigilantes and police harassment
and securing legal support as the victims of these assaults go through the
court system. *“We’re the ones who keep us safe”*
LH

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 8:14 PM Mark Mandel <markamandel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Amy, you've captured what I was thinking and expressed it much
> more clearly than any of the ways I was contemplating.
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 12:46 PM Amy West <medievalist at w-sts.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/26/22 00:00, ADS-L automatic digest system wrote:
> > > In the cases above, it's subject contrast that's relevant, as in "*We
> > *keep
> > > us safe", contrasting with X keeps us safe for some other X that you
> > might
> > > unwisely depend on to do so. (Note example (e) above for another 1st
> > plural
> > > case.) But object contrast works too, again only for 1st and 2nd person
> > > pronouns (and names).
> >
> >
> > I think a big difference between your examples, Prof. Horn, and Mark's
> > is that the "WE KEEP US SAFE" doesn't have a precedent to create the
> > contrast/cohesion with. That is, the "me" or "us" that's retained in the
> > construction is often explicitly echoing/repeating the "me" or "us" of a
> > preceding clause:
> >
> > a. He nods but I’m not sure he believes me. I’m not sure*I*  believe me.
> >                                         ^^^^                         ^^^^
> > (Sandra Scoppetone mystery novel I’ll Be Leaving You Always, 1993, p. 82)
> >
> > e. “Teams are going to be waiting. People expect us to win;*we*  expect
> us
> >                                                  ^^^^
> >  ^^^^
> >
> > to win.” (Jason Sehorn of the division-winning Giants, quoted in NYT 10
> > Sep.
> >
> > 1998, C7)
> >
> >
> > Having said that, it didn't strike me as ungrammatical either. It struck
> > me as a stylistic/usage choice, and one that did not sound funny to me.
> >
> > The connection to the title that Chris made notwithstanding, I think
> > that if it had be "WE KEEP OURSELVES SAFE" I would interpret the
> > "OURSELVES" as meaning a group of individuals as individuals (that is,
> > it is your own individual responsibility to keep yourself safe as an
> > individual); with the "US", I interpret it as a group of individuals as
> > a group (that is, it's your responsibility to look out for yourself and
> > others within this group in order to keep the group safe).
> >
> > ---Amy West
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org