Nonverbis
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2021
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Russian
- Home Country
- Russian Federation
- Current Location
- Russian Federation
Missing out the "to" in that construction is perfectly fine in AmE. We don't omit it in BrE.This is from Upstream Proficiency by Virginia Evans and Jenny Dooley.
Could you tell me whether there is a mistake here - maybe "go to see a good comedy"?
I'd like to add that the American omission of "to" between "go" and an immediately following verb can happen only when each verb is in its base form.Missing out the "to" in that construction is perfectly fine in AmE.
Yes, I almost mentioned that myself. The "go and [verb]" construction, in all tenses, has been used for many hundreds of years, even in the highest registers of English.A very common equivalent is the use of and instead of to.
If I needed cheering up, I'd go and see a movie.
This works in past tense too, where both verbs are inflected:
I went and saw a movie.
The "go and [verb]" construction, in all tenses, has been used for many hundreds of years, even in the highest registers of English.
Jutfrank, does it sound bad to you, in informal English, to say "Let's go see a movie," "Come see a movie with me," etc.?
Oh, yes, the "go/come and [verb]" construction, in any tense, is very common in AmE. I don't think I've ever heard anyone criticize it. "Try and [verb]" is a different story.Despite being a tremendously common construction, never have I once seen it mentioned by any of the mainstream ELT course materials. I don't know why. Is it as common in NAmE as it is in BrE, do you think?
That's great to hear. In my opinion, the comparison of combinations like "go/come see" to things like "No, it's pretty natural for me. It does sound a little American, but not too much. I'd say it's common enough in British English nowadays, from my observations.