Could you get me my glasses from the other room, please?

[NAL123]

1) Could you get me my glasses from the other room, please?

2) Could you go and get me my glasses from the other room, please?
Or, Could you go to the other room and get me my glasses, please?

3) Could you go to the other room to get my glasses and bring them back to me, please?

Q1) Do (1), (2) and (3) mean the same thing?
Q2) If so, can I say the verb "get" in (2) replaces two verbs in (3), namely "get" and "bring", and the verb "get" in (1) replaces the two verbs "go" and "get" in (2) or the three verbs "go", "get" and "bring" in (3)?

 

[jutfrank]

Q1) Yes
Q2) All three sentences are making the same request. Nothing is 'replacing' anything.

This sense of 'get', which is synonymous with 'fetch', implies all three actions: go, take, return.

 

[NAL123]

This sense of 'get', which is synonymous with 'fetch', implies all three actions: go, take, return.

I understand that in (1), "get" means "fetch". But what is the meaning of "get" in 2 and 3?

 

[jutfrank]

I think there are two ways to understand this pattern 'go and get'. Does it express two separate actions or does it express one complex movement? If you understand that there are two actions, the second 'get' part is equivalent only to 'take into possession' or 'acquire'. The third action of returning to a starting point is only implied by the context. In this particular context, it's very clear that the speaker wishes the listener to return with the glasses. However, in other contexts it isn't:

Shall we go and get a coffee somewhere?

Here, there is no implication that either speaker or listener intends to return to their starting point.

I believe there is plenty of interesting literature on this odd pattern 'go and [verb]' in both semantics and syntax, and it has interested me for many years. I don't really know anything about the syntax side of things but if anyone here does, I'd be very interested to hear about it. In British English, this pattern is extremely common in colloquial speech, but no coursebook or mainstream student grammar I've ever read mentions it.

 

[jutfrank]

3) Could you go to the other room to get my glasses and bring them back to me, please?

This example sentence is no good for two reasons:

1) The word 'to' would in natural speech be 'and', forming the pattern 'go and get'.
2) The latter part 'and bring them back to me' is entirely superfluous since the speaker meaning is more than clear without it.

This is how the request would be with this arrangement:

Could you go to the other room and get my glasses, please?

Your sentences 1 and 2 are good.

 

[NAL123]

Could you go to the other room and get my glasses, please?

So the above sentence is correct and if I add "me" to it, then there's no problem:

Could you go to the other room and get me my glasses, please?

Am I right?

 

[jutfrank]

Am I right?

Yes, you're right. The word 'me' is highly natural in this context but the sentence is equally natural without it, which is why I chose not to include it in my example. In this context, it doesn't add any important meaning as far as the request is concerned. All it does is specify whom the glasses should be delivered to, which is already clear in this case.

There can be other contexts where adding an indirect object is an essential part of the pragmatic meaning:

Could you go into the other room and get her my glasses, please?

This could make sense. Obviously, here the implied returning point is her location, not the speaker's location.