| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:58 pm Post subject: grammar question (go looking for vs. go to look for) |
 |
|
I got hit with a question this morning that I hope someone can help me out with.
1. I went looking for my friend.
2. I went to look for my friend.
Are both of these correct? We usually use (go + ing), so I've been
asked why (go + to look for) is correct. They both sound OK to me, but that doesn't really cut it for justification.
I found the following in a reference book:
The Teacher's Grammar of English:
| Quote: |
Certain verbs that describe the beginning or progression of an action -
for example, being, start, and continue - often occur with both types
of complements with little of no difference in meaning.
a) He took a few steps and started jogging.
b) He took a few steps and started to jog.
(a) and (b) seem to have the same meaning.
c) He started speaking.
d) He started to speak.
(c) and (d) may be slightly different. In (c) he definitely spoke.
|
Would it be correct to use the pair (c) and (d) to justify that the original sentences 1. and 2. are both correct?
Thanks a lot for your opinions/advice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Both sentences are grammatically well formed. In sentence one, went functions as an auxiliary, aka helping verb. In sentence two, went functions as the main verb and is therefore followed by a to-infinitive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Thiuda for your reply.
When will I ever be able to explain simply things both clearly and accurately? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raewon wrote: |
Thank you Thiuda for your reply.
When will I ever be able to explain simply things both clearly and accurately? |
...hmm....reawon...you did a good job of answering your own question in your original post...nicely done and well researched. 
...it is fairly common to contrast/compare the progressive with the infinitive...as your original research shows, it can often generate some interesting results for subtle yet important nuances with regards to inferred/implied meaning.
...once again...well done...your grammar inquisitiveness is more than a little admirable to say the least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifeinkorea
Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Location: somewhere in China
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read it like the following:
Friend 1: Where's Bob? He was here 30 minutes ago.
Friend 2: He's not here now.
Friend 1: WHY did Bob leave?
Friend 2: He went to, in order to look for friend 3.
(next day)
Friend 4: Bob, where did you go yesterday? Friend 1 was looking for you.
Bob: I went looking for friend 3.
Moral of story: Everything (including ESL grammar questions) is friend 3's fault  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aske
Joined: 25 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| Both sentences are grammatically well formed. In sentence one, went functions as an auxiliary, aka helping verb. In sentence two, went functions as the main verb and is therefore followed by a to-infinitive. |
No, 'go' never functions periphrastically (ie. as an auxiliary/helping verb). In both sentences 'go' is functioning as a linking verb with the subsequent words functioning as complementary substantives (or subject complements, whichever term is preferred).
| Code: |
I went looking for my friend.
(subj) (linking verb) (nominative phrase as gerund phrase)
I went to look for my friend.
(subj) (linking verb) (nominative phrase as infinitive phrase) |
'Go' is such a strange verb because of all its usages since Old English. In this usage it has the sense of 'to participate in' such as 'go flying', 'go Dutch', etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| Both sentences are grammatically well formed. In sentence one, went functions as an auxiliary, aka helping verb. In sentence two, went functions as the main verb and is therefore followed by a to-infinitive. |
I don't think you can call 'go' in 'go looking' an auxiliary verb. The auxiliary in this case remains 'do' in simple present and simple past constructions e.g. "Do I go looking for him if he doesn't show up?" or "Did you go looking for it?".
Also, many main verbs can be followed either by a to-infinitive or a gerund e.g. "I love to swim/swimming". However, you can put any to-infinitive after 'go' but only a limited set of -ing form verbs: you can't say "Let's go checking/eating/smiling" etc. This leads me to think 'looking' is not actually a gerund here.
Some might say it's a present participle i.e. a reduced form of 'go while looking' but, again, that doesn't work for 'checking', 'eating', or 'smiling', although that may have been the origin of the expression.
I think the collocational link has become firm enough to describe 'go looking' as a single transitive verb (with an indirect object after 'for'). That's the analysis that makes the most sense to me, but I'd be interested to hear others' opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Then again, when it comes to which -ing forms you can put after 'go', maybe the rule is any activity that can be repeated or extended over a period of time and that involves moving about or moving to another place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aske
Joined: 25 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| Thiuda wrote: |
| Both sentences are grammatically well formed. In sentence one, went functions as an auxiliary, aka helping verb. In sentence two, went functions as the main verb and is therefore followed by a to-infinitive. |
I don't think you can call 'go' in 'go looking' an auxiliary verb. The auxiliary in this case remains 'do' in simple present and simple past constructions e.g. "Do I go looking for him if he doesn't show up?" or "Did you go looking for it?".
Also, many main verbs can be followed either by a to-infinitive or a gerund e.g. "I love to swim/swimming". However, you can put any to-infinitive after 'go' but only a limited set of -ing form verbs: you can't say "Let's go checking/eating/smiling" etc. This leads me to think 'looking' is not actually a gerund here.
Some might say it's a present participle i.e. a reduced form of 'go while looking' but, again, that doesn't work for 'checking', 'eating', or 'smiling', although that may have been the origin of the expression.
I think the collocational link has become firm enough to describe 'go looking' as a single transitive verb (with an indirect object after 'for'). That's the analysis that makes the most sense to me, but I'd be interested to hear others' opinions. |
There is nothing grammatically wrong with the gerunds you posted, they are just non-standard and as such seem strange. This is partly due to the sense 'go' takes on in this usage; hardly anyone would consider 'checking' or 'smiling' a participative activity. When the sentences are given additional information that marks the activities as participative they begin to sound more creative instead of simply strange:
We went smiling all the way down the block during the parade.
I go checking every bag when I hear the security alarm.
This usage seems to place more emphasis on the verb as an activity in and of itself instead of an action. Compare there two sentences:
We flew through the mountains.
We went flying through the mountains.
Without context, the first implies that the flight through the mountains was only special because of its location as if a plane just happened to cross over a mountain range on a flight.
The second has the sense that the subjects actually participated in an activity involving flying like hang gliding.
| Privateer wrote: |
| Then again, when it comes to which -ing forms you can put after 'go', maybe the rule is any activity that can be repeated or extended over a period of time and that involves moving about or moving to another place. |
I go thinking that's correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ Interesting. Thanks.
I go, pondering your words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
After reading the replies by aske and Privateer, I posted the question on a linguistics forum for some more points of view. The responses validate aske's reply, though the analysis of went as a linking verb is thrown into question.
http://www.lingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2343
All the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
