I'm going to go

[alpacinou]

Hello.

I heard from a non-native speaker that it's wrong to say "go" after "going to".

Is that true?

Is this wrong?

I'm going to go to the grocery store after dinner.

 

[GoesStation]

I heard from a non-native speaker that it's wrong to say "go" after "going to".

Is that true?

Is this wrong?

I'm going to go to the grocery store after dinner.

It's fine to say that. In fluid speech, native speakers usually say gonna go. Don't use that in writing except in very casual settings.

 

[alpacinou]

I wonder what she was talking about. Maybe she got confused. Is there something that "can't" be used immediately after "going to"?

 

[GoesStation]

I wonder what she was talking about. Maybe she got confused. Is there something that "can't" be used immediately after "going to"?

You can either follow it with an appropriate noun or with a bare infinitive.

"I'm going to the store."
"I'm going to make dinner."
"If you kids don't quiet down, I'm going to go crazy."

 

[Phaedrus]

Maybe she got confused.

If "going to go to" seems redundant in "I'm going to go to the store" in light of the fact that we can simply say "I'm going to the store," the independent contribution of the "[be] going to" part, which signifies intention as well as futurity, can very easily be seen in the past tense:

I was going to go to the store, but I didn't have enough time.

That sentence may be compared to I intended to go to the store, but I didn't have enough time. Interestingly, "was going to go to the store" cannot be replaced by "was going to the store" in that sentence. This is nonsense: I was going to the store, but I didn't have enough time.

 

[Phaedrus]

I don't agree that it's nonsense. I think it's possible.

What do you suppose it means? Do you like this one as well?

I was traveling to the store, but I didn't have enough time.

 

[Phaedrus]

It means I had planned/arranged to go to the store but I didn't have enough time.

I don't like your other suggestion, but that is probably because I don't associate travelling with going to a store.

If one is going to the store, isn't one in transit to the store? How is that the same thing as intending or planning to go there?

If you don't like traveling as a synonym for being in transit, let's change the example so that it uses was in transit to the store.

I was in transit to the store, but I didn't have enough time.

Perhaps it is "going a bit far" to describe such a sentence as nonsense. Can we at least agree that it's semantically anomalous and not as clear as this?

I was going to go to the store, but I didn't have enough time.

My point is that [BE] going to/gonna expresses intention, especially obviously in the past tense, and makes sense of "not having enough time."

If one intends to do X but does not have enough time, the meaning is that one does not enough time to do X.

If one is in transit to some place, it is not clear, in a contextual vacuum, what not having enough time means. Consider this:

A: What were you doing at two o'clock this afternoon? If, as I think, you were going to the store, did you by chance stop to see the ducks?
B: I was going to the store, but I didn't have enough time.

In such a highly specialized context, the sentence I have described as semantically anomalous actually makes sense.

It means: I was on my way to the store at two o'clock this afternoon, but I didn't have enough time to stop to see the ducks.

 

[jutfrank]

I think Phaedrus' point is just that I'm going to the store and I'm going to go to the store mean different things. The 'be going to' bit makes an independent semantic contribution.

 

[jutfrank]

In a sentence such as I am going/going to go to the store after dinner, there is very little difference in meaning.

Yes, exactly—there is a difference in meaning, albeit little.

 

[Phaedrus]

If one is going to the store, isn't one in transit to the store? How is that the same thing as intending or planning to go there?

It isn't the same thing. As always, context is our guide.

1. I was going to the store, but I didn't have time. I didn't go.

By not italicizing "I didn't go," you have indicated that "I didn't go" is not part of the context but your interpretation. What about the ducks, Piscean?

If one is in transit to some place, it is not clear, in a contextual vacuum, what not having enough time means. Consider this:

A: What were you doing at two o'clock this afternoon? If, as I think, you were going to the store, did you by chance stop to see the ducks?
B: I was going to the store, but I didn't have enough time.

In such a highly specialized context, the sentence I have described as semantically anomalous actually makes sense.

It means: I was on my way to the store at two o'clock this afternoon, but I didn't have enough time to stop to see the ducks.

As is clear from that example, not having (enough) time in our example need not mean I didn't have (enough) time to go to the store.

Meanwhile, consider how little sense it would make to say ?I was going to go to the store, but I didn't have enough time to stop to see the ducks.

I think you will agree that not having enough time to stop to see the ducks bears no inherent contrastive relationship to intending to go to the store.

Yet not having enough time to go to the store manifestly does bear an inherent contrastive relationship to intending to go to the store.

I am not alone in my feelings about this possible meaning of the past progressive. Quirk et al, for example, say:

(p 210) It [the Progressive aspect] may be used to refer to the future or to the future in the past [my emphasis added]:

Are you going to the meeting (tomorrow?
They were getting married the following spring.

(p 218) Future time in the past [...]


(c) PAST PROGRESSIVE (arrangement predetermined in the past)

I was meeting him in Bordeaux the next day.

Of course, I do not mean to suggest that I deny the possibility of the predetermined-arrangement-in-the-past meaning of the past progressive.

A: Why had you put on your jeans?
B: I was going to the store.

But I contend that this meaning leans heavily on the context as a guide, requiring it to keep the in-the-act-of-doing-something meaning at bay.

Consider the following contrast:

(i) I encountered a lot of traffic while going to the store.
(ii) ?*! I encountered a lot of traffic while going to go to the store.

I find (ii) ungrammatical, but I'll rest content with calling it absolutely ridiculous.

Regarding (i), should you want to say that a predetermined-arrangement-in-the-past meaning is possible? I, for one, find it inconceivable there.

 

[emsr2d2]

Note that when we're talking about a plan we had but didn't carry out, the stress is on the past verb.

Alan: What did you do last night?
Helen: Well, I was going to the cinema but I decided I couldn't be bothered so I stayed home and watched Netflix.

The stress is on "was" to indicate that going to the cinema was the original plan.