0

“If I was you, I'd wanna be me too”

This is a line from the song "Me Too" by Meghan Trainor. See lyrics here.

I'm wondering, to whom does "me" refer? Because "if I was you," then "me" could refer to me if I'm you (you), or me right now (not you).

So is it a way of saying:

  1. I like the way I look, so you should want to be me, too.
  2. I like the way you look, so you should want to be you.

Note: in the context of the song, she's looking in a mirror, but I'm asking as if she is not, in order to create a distinction between "me" and "you".

mbomb007
  • 489
  • This question would probably also apply to this lyric, but it's not what I'm asking about. – mbomb007 Oct 31 '16 at 15:36
  • It doesn't explicitly say anything at all about what the addressee should do. It simply hypothesises what the speaker would do if he were the addressee (or more meaningfully, in his position). – FumbleFingers Oct 31 '16 at 15:46
  • @FumbleFingers Should is from my perspective. I'm trying to formulate the question without using so many pronouns. If I say "I wouldn't do that if I were you", that implies they shouldn't do it, according to my perspective. I think it's pretty clear what I'm asking. – mbomb007 Oct 31 '16 at 15:49
  • 2
    There's inherent and unavoidable ambiguity as to the referent of *me* in your example - just as with, say, If I were you I'd divorce my* wife. Which could either mean if the speaker had the addressee's attitudes, circumstances, etc., he would divorce his (the speaker's) wife, OR that if the addressee* had the speakers' perspective, he would divorce his (the addressee's) wife. That's just a limitation of English for certain unreal hypothetical contexts. – FumbleFingers Oct 31 '16 at 15:59
  • 1
    This was meant to be interpreted as Meghan Trainor saying, "If I (Meghan) was mbomb007, I (Meghan as mbomb007) would want to be Meghan too." – Jim Oct 31 '16 at 16:03
  • The interpretation seems obvious: If I were you, my counter-factual self would want to be my factual self, just as your factual self already does. However, the explanation seems far from obvious. How do we pragmatically know that the "I" of the independent clause is the only pronoun with a counter-factual antecedent? The directly-marked counter-factual is the subordinate subjunctive "were" -- but we can't claim that the verb is the antecedent of the personal pronoun. – Gary Botnovcan Oct 31 '16 at 20:48
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because lyric interpretation is off-topic. – Hot Licks Nov 01 '16 at 22:17

1 Answers1

2

It means something like "I know you admire me and would like to be like me. If I were in your position (not being Meghan), I would also like to be Meghan."

I hope it helps.

Juan M
  • 928