let's straighten things out
Thursday, March 05, 2009 (10:57 PM)
some time ago, the english majors were discussing the mechanics behind let's. for some reason, they were trying to explain why let's is not a contraction of let us, which i thought it was. but the conversation just started on the premise that it is not a contraction and they were trying to find an explanation for it.
i recall priya came up with the most acceptable answer which went something like, contractions only occur with succeeding verbs like be. us is not a verb, thus no contraction can take place. for example:
she is -> she's
he is -> he's
they are -> they're
we are -> we're
in spite of that, i still think it is a contraction of "let us" because contractions don't just occur with verbs. look, i just used one. don't.
not is not a verb but it can still be contracted with the verb do, can as well as many others. with this evidence to the contrary, the premise accepted before cannot stand.
but this got me thinking... hypothetically speaking, if let's is really a contraction of let us, but can't and don't do not exist. without the evidence to the contrary, how can we disprove the hypothesis we first came up with?
even without evidence, can't something be an exception? let's think...