Job Discussion Forums

[Mr. English]

A sentence in a writing book written by Chinese: "One day my sister told me to go to fly a kite." A student wants to know why I tell them that the second "to" should not be used. I have searched Swan's Practical English Usage and find no discrete answer to this question. Can anyone enlighten me?

[Sashadroogie]

Most likely because the second 'to' can be used. Or even replaced with an 'and'. Two base forms together is an Americanism, and probably wouldn't be featured in Swan too much.

[johnslat]

Dear Mr. English,

I'd say that it's "informal," primarily conversational, English, an ellipsis that is really a compound verb.:

Go (and) fly a kite; "go (and) tell Aunt Rhody/the old grey goose is dead," go (and ) vote, go (and) do your duty.

Regards,
John

[Mr. English]

Well I am an American. Haven't sussed it yet. More comments appreciated.

[fluffyhamster]

Post removed due to zero response. (If anyone would like to (re-)read what I wrote though and perhaps even discuss it, just ask and I'll re-post ).

Yup, I don't like talking to myself, and IMHO too many replies from any number of users get left hanging for far too long if not forever on these forums. (One to discuss maybe!). Even a TL: DR would be something.

[Sashadroogie]

Oh go on then, Fluffy. I'll try and provoke some dialectical analysis from the others too : )

[fluffyhamster]

"Just for you" then, Sasha...

I've had to read between the lines a little (maybe a bit too much!), but here's what I've concluded on the basis of consulting several references (main ones listed at end of post):

Coordinated binomials (here, two verbs, joined with 'and'), and in the case of 'come' and 'go' a then possibly "and-less" V+V (i.e. the use of the bare rather than to-infinitive for the second V), suggest that the two actions are seen as so close and likely to be executed (if not quite fully completed) together, simultaneously, that there is at most merely an "and then" relation holding between them. Things are made stronger still when the 'and' becomes just an 'n' in rapid speech.

If however one uses a 'to' (and the only coordinated binomial that seems to offer this option instead of 'and' is 'try', not that the following necessarily applies to that option) then the relationship becomes more tenuous, of an apparent 'in order to' nature, and thus much more accepting of a potential incompletion of the to-infinitive part. Then, it is hard to think of a convincing negative that could apply to the 'fly' rather than the 'tell' in the original example, implying that the binomial or rather V+V there is certainly quite idiomatic and metaphorical (and thus less admitting of any literal break-up and interpretation).

Finally, one could look at a wider range of things than verbs for the second item, but which convey pretty much the same meaning as the original sentence: One day my sister told me to:

go away (?/*go to/and away)
get stuffed (??/*get to/and stuff(ed))
get lost (*get to/and lost)
(go spin (?go to/and spin(...)))

You could also point out that after a 'going', a 'to' would be needed, with the meaning literal: I'm going (imminently, 'be going to', or actually moving right now e.g. to the field) to fly a kite.

Short version: ultimately, certainly a 'to' would make the phrasing sound less idiomatic if not mere chance, a literal 'in order to' juxtaposition (such as We go [to Beachy Head] to/and fly kites/have blustery picnics/do a Quadrophenia).

Or how about this (from the COBUILD Grammar):

[Sashadroogie]

All interesting points, Fluffy. However, I think we need to come down on one side or the other. People who say things like 'go figure' or 'come visit' are clearly from the uneducated masses, bereft of a solid Soviet education.'Go and figure something out' is demonstrably better English.

This is also the case in other languages to, such as Russian. The title of the best war film ever made makes this clear: 'Idi i smotri'. Word for word, 'Come and See'.

http://vimeo.com/10761056

So, the English-speaking world can be divided into two camps. The ignorant, who say 'come see'. And the intelligent, educated ones who say 'come and see'.

I know which side I am on. Anybody else care to give voice to their views?

[fluffyhamster]

But the idiom in question is clearly American, and if we're going to use it we might as well do so properly. That is, saying 'Go and fly a kite' (and thus adding the extra syllable) must to American ears sound a bit like saying 'hillybilly' rather than 'hillbilly' (the former of which just sounds silly, as in silly billy). I don't think anyone is going to disagree though that 'Go to fly a kite' is "plain wrong". The question still remains however as to quite why the 'to' shouldn't be added in this instance.

I gave Come and See a go after reading a rave review in a Time Out list of top war films (it was number 1 IIRC), and it wasn't all that. I guess I just need more explosions and better SFX, a bigger bang for my buck - that, or to try give it a second go. (Hmm, why not just lose the first verb, 'try', there entirely? ).

[Sashadroogie]

OK. So far, nobody else has responded. Let's leave it for tonight. But tomorrow I'll try to stir up a hornet's nest for you... Go sleep now : )

[fluffyhamster]

TBH I'd prefer to actually discuss the grammar than have a "hornet's nest" stirred up (by the same old tangential "pro-Soviet, anti-American" jokes).

Mind you, the grammar in this instance may not be interesting enough or seem too marginal, and the best answer the OP could give to the students might simply be that the cold facts of idiomatic usage are 'go fly a kite', and that the text with 'go to fly a kite' is in error (perhaps a printing mistake blah blah blah).

Or one could Google "go fly a kite" versus "go to fly a kite" (double quote marks return results for that exact phrasing), and note that there are over one million versus just 58,000 hits for each, with the former devoted to definitions of the idiom, or snappier lyrics and headlines and the like, while the latter (barring 'Did you mean...?'-style duplicates) seem to mainly be from kite enthusiasts asking literal questions (Where should I go to... , How far would you go to...).

All in a day's work for an ELTer, really.

[roadwalker]

I asked Prof. Googlée about it and she directed me to a pdf that discusses the American special usage of 'go' and 'come' in compound verb situations. It starts off in English then appears to morph into a story problem for an astro-physics exam. It could also be written in inside linguistics. Neither my strong suit. But for those of you who like big words, enjoy:

http://ling.umd.edu//~mkishida/ECO509/Bjorkman.pdf

[Sashadroogie]

OK Fluffy, be like that, then, hurumph! You were the one whinging that nobody was interested in your post, though. I was the only one who replied, and then you turn around and make anti-Soviet statements and criticise my posts as 'boring'!!

Brings to mind many phrases related to the topic - involving lakes and jumping...

Now I'm off for a good sulk and a shot or three of my morning constitutional, hic!

[fluffyhamster]

Thanks for posting that pdf's abstract's link, Roadwalker. It's just about comprehensible (to me), but then it helps that I've stuck my nose in a few syntax books from time to time, and have several grammar and linguistics dictionaries floating about the place.

It seems the main thing to take away from it is probably that these V+V constructions can be analyzed as essentially imperative (umm, for our purposes, [Go-/]Fly a kite!, versus say *To fly a kite!?), with the complement of the first verb "taking the place of a semi-obligatory locative argument" (e.g. the 'away' substitution I posited in my first reply?). Just my rough n ready, quick n dirty interpretation. So perhaps the best answer to give to the OP's students now would be that this is some sort of "compound imperative" or "double imperative" or somesuch, with each verb just as idiomatically important as the other and bound into a fixed phrasing.

Sorry to have rained on your parade of ICBMs, Sahsa!

[Sashadroogie]

Greetings Fluffster!

As per your request on another thread, please find below my thoughts on your continued accusations of anti-American sentiment.

I have no anti-American sentiment whatsoever. Some of my best friends are Americans : ) I am, of course, virulently anti-piggie. There is a sharp distinction. You may be confused by that, labouring under the misapprehensions so assiduously nurtured by the piggies themselves - chief amongst them the notions of national differences, rivalries and exceptionalism. We Communists disdain such ideas and condemn them as deep ideological errors, inimicable to our plans for a future utopia, based on universal peace and brotherhood.

So, to pillory my comments, here and elsewhere, as being little more than barely-concealed anti-Americanism is both untrue and unfair. I must say that such outbursts seem quite disingenuous and beneath the dignity of a rodent such as your good self. Why not attack me for my comments on UKisms such as "I was stood/sat there"? This is an ignorant structure to utter, but is vocalising this view somehow Brit-bashing? I would strongly disagree. To link the piggie-imposed poor standards of education which result in such utterances may be something up for debate - fair enough. But please, refrain from these claims that this is somehow a chauvinist attitude.

Now, back to my parade review of ICBMs trundling past the Mausoleum. We have so many of these rockets, you know. Falling off the assembly belt like sausages they are...