"Let's" is not a contraction.

BKK   Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:44 pm GMT
"Let's" is not a contraction. The reason it's not a contraction is, unlike with other contractions, "let's" isn't interchangeable with "let us".
Guest   Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:04 pm GMT
Lets is the inflected form of let (that is, adding an s on the end) for the third person singular and let's IS the contracted form of 'let us'. The apostrophe is all important matey.
BKK   Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:11 pm GMT
"let's" is not a contraction. "let's" and "let us" don't have the same meaning unlike with actual contractions which have the same meaning for both the contracted and uncontracted forms. "let's" and "let us" have different meanings.
Travis   Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:15 pm GMT
I agree with BKK - "let's" may be historically derived from "let us" (compare with German "lass uns") but today it is not interchangeable in actual usage with "let us". I would say that it is an auxiliary verb of some sort which has no indicative or subjunctive forms or just a particle used just for marking the first person plural imperative today.
furrykef   Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:27 am GMT
This is just a matter of terminology. The answer to "Is 'let's' a contraction?" is simply a matter of how you define "contraction".
Franco   Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:17 am GMT
Exact definitions are essential, it's not the matter of personal taste.
beneficii   Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:19 am GMT
Huh?

I can use "Let's go," and "Let us go." One may sound more formal than the other, but that shouldn't make "let's" not be a contraction of "let us," should it?
Guest   Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:17 am GMT
that is true. LET US is still used in formal writing.
M56   Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:42 am GMT
<"Let's" is not a contraction. >

It's a lexicalised unit.
Pub Lunch   Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:02 am GMT
Hmmmnn. I always use let's in place of let us and lets for the third person singular. As far as I am concerned let's is the contracted form of let us and I don't recall ever having a problem using it as such.
Travis   Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:50 pm GMT
>>Huh?

I can use "Let's go," and "Let us go." One may sound more formal than the other, but that shouldn't make "let's" not be a contraction of "let us," should it?<<

That's the thing - for very many speakers of English today, "let's go" and "let us go" do not mean the same thing at all. Rather, "let's go" is a first person plural imperative telling the group of people one is in to go, whereas "let us go" is telling someone to *allow* the group the speaker is in to go.
Milton   Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:25 am GMT
"let's go" and "let us go" do not mean the same thing at all.''


well, ''you'd better go, you had better go, you would better go''
don't mean the same thing either, but I don't find people saying
''you'd'' is not a contraction but an fixed expression
Guest 224   Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:53 am GMT
To me, "let's" is a contraction of "let us" because "Let's go" and "Let us go" mean the exact same thing except...


in the case that we are asking someone to permit/allow us to go somewhere.
Guest   Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:47 am GMT
No, it is a contraction. It's the same as saying "let us." And what Milton says two posts up is very true. You have to differentiate between two or more possible meanings by basing the true meaning on the context that it's in.
M56   Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:51 am GMT
<I can use "Let's go," and "Let us go." One may sound more formal than the other, but that shouldn't make "let's" not be a contraction of "let us," should it? >

In which situation of contemporary use would one find "let us go" or "ley us not go" as a full form of "let's"? I'm not talking about frozen forms such as "let us pray", but contemporary functional use.

The best way to treat "lets'" is as a lexical item defined by its function.