I don't want to 'go back'

[nyota]

Imagine the following:

Mike got shot and as he's dying his soul is escaping his body. Mike calls to it:
- Come back you bastard of a soul! - And the soul replies grinning,
- I don't want to go back, I like it here.

Could I substitute 'go back' with 'come back' in the soul's line? I thought of it because 'come back' is used when the movement's towards the speaker OR the hearer.

 

[BobK]

But he's not talking about nearer to or further from the hearer. He's talking about his soul going (in the tradition of Christianity - the word's so ingrained in the language that there may well be no religious belief behind it) from here (on Earth) to there (Eternity, where it started).

b

 

[nyota]

But he's not talking about nearer to or further from the hearer. He's talking about his soul going (in the tradition of Christianity - the word's so ingrained in the language that there may well be no religious belief behind it) from here (on Earth) to there (Eternity, where it started).

b

If we treat the soul as a separate entitity that can talk and then it does talk to somebody, the hearer, then we sort of CAN talk about movement towards the hearer. Hmm :-?

 

[BobK]

:-? and double :-? :-? If for the sake of argument - strictly between Cartesian dualists ;-) - Mike's body could speak to his soul, it would make no sense for him to say 'I don't want to come back', as there is no question of the body going anywhere (before Armageddon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that is). And it's never been in Heaven...

Speaking of which, A'hm a-gettin' out of this discussion, which is getting which is gettimg a bit too metaphysical for my, and the forum's, taste. ;-)

 

[White Hat]

:-? and double :-? :-? If for the sake of argument - strictly between Cartesian dualists ;-) - Mike's body could speak to his soul, it would make no sense for him to say 'I don't want to come back', as there is no question of the body going anywhere (before Armageddon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that is). And it's never been in Heaven...

Speaking of which, A'hm a-gettin' out of this discussion, which is getting which is gettimg a bit too metaphysical for my, and the forum's, taste. ;-)

I second that.

 

[nyota]

I'm not sure if the picture makes things any clearer.

I realise it's not a very probable situation, to say the least, for many reasons (1. Do souls even exist? 2. Why is he still talking to the soul if it's already off the leash? They're the same 'person' etc.) but trust me, I really don't intend to go metaphysical on you.

I would just like to know why 'come back' doesn't work in the gap, considering the most general rule that the soul is the speaker (at the point of uttering its line) and the dead...ish body is the hearer. So the movement would be from the speaker to the hearer which, theoretically, means we'd use 'come'.

If you feel you've already answered my question, then I'm sorry, I just didn't get the explanation. Wouldn't be the first time, but perhaps someone can try again.

If you wouldn't like to even come near the above situation, please substitute both of the characters with regular people, Bob and Ben.
Bob (in anger): Come back here you bastard!
Ben: I don't want to ........... back! I like it here!

Speaking of Armageddon, "Australian for A'hm a-gettin' out here, that's the end of the world" : Glorious

 

[White Hat]

The way I see it, like it was explained above, the soul hasn't gone to Heaven yet. It's still near the body. That being the case, the use of "go back" feels the right option here. If the soul were replying from Heaven, then "come back" could make sense.

 

[nyota]

The way I see it, like it was explained above, the soul hasn't gone to Heaven yet. It's still near the body. That being the case, the use of "go back" feels the right option here. If the soul were replying from Heaven, then "come back" could make sense.

Is it really the distance that's decisive here?

What about this understanding:

I don't want to go back (meaning I don't want to go back there i.e. a place on Earth, sort of 'away' from the hearer or at least not precisely in his direction);
I don't want to come back (meaning I don't want to come back to you, movement towards the hearer)?

 

[emsr2d2]

But if you work on the assumption that the soul and the body are just two parts of the same entity, then the soul would be "coming back" to the other half of itself.

If I hadn't seen any of the previous comments on this thread, and I had simply seen the cartoon with the space for either "go" or "come" I think my first instinct would have been to say "come".

 

[White Hat]

nyota, in your context "go back" is better. For some reason, "come back" makes one think of a place someone is in. And he/she will return not immediately, but in some time. Incidentally, "to come back" also means "to score enough goals to tie the score", which does take some time.

 

[emsr2d2]

I think the reason I think it should be "come back" is that the soul would almost simply be repeating what he has been told to do, and saying that he doesn't want to do that.

If I imagine that I am in the street with my friend John and I start to walk away from him:

John: Come back.
Me: No, I don't want to come back. There's an interesting shop down here.

I definitely wouldn't say "I don't want to go back" in reply to the instruction "Come back".

I think when you're refusing to do the instruction contained in an imperative, you normally repeat the same verb back, no matter what.

Mother (at home): Go to school!
Child (at home): I don't want to go to school.

Mother (at school): Come to school!
Child (at home): I don't want to come to school. I want to stay right here at home.

Father: Come back here right now.
Child: I don't want to come back. I like it over here.

 

[nyota]

But if you work on the assumption that the soul and the body are just two parts of the same entity, then the soul would be "coming back" to the other half of itself.

If I hadn't seen any of the previous comments on this thread, and I had simply seen the cartoon with the space for either "go" or "come" I think my first instinct would have been to say "come".

Good to hear because I was starting to think I'm going bonkers. Thanks Ems, also for the examples in post #11, they're great.

 

[White Hat]

I think the reason I think it should be "come back" is that the soul would almost simply be repeating what he has been told to do, and saying that he doesn't want to do that.

If I imagine that I am in the street with my friend John and I start to walk away from him:

John: Come back.
Me: No, I don't want to come back. There's an interesting shop down here.

I definitely wouldn't say "I don't want to go back" in reply to the instruction "Come back".

I think when you're refusing to do the instruction contained in an imperative, you normally repeat the same verb back, no matter what.

Mother (at home): Go to school!
Child (at home): I don't want to go to school.

Mother (at school): Come to school!
Child (at home): I don't want to come to school. I want to stay right here at home.

Father: Come back here right now.
Child: I don't want to come back. I like it over here.

Great stuff! :up: