I'll go check it out

allthewayanime · Jan 19, 2012

Will it be correct if I use 'I'll go to check it out' instead 'I'll go check it out'?

bhaisahab · Jan 19, 2012

allthewayanime said:
Will it be correct if I use 'I'll go to check it out' instead 'I'll go check it out'?

It would not only be correct, it would be better.

david11 · Jan 19, 2012

What about I will go and check it out?

Is that also correct?

5jj · Jan 19, 2012

It's fine.

david11 · Jan 19, 2012

5jj said:
It's fine.

Thank you sir.

BobK · Jan 19, 2012

bhaisahab said:
It would not only be correct, it would be better.

As I assume (with no foundation ;-)) that this use of 'check out' comes from America, I don't think we can insist on a British syntactic scaffolding. To 'go do something' is widely acceptable in Amertican English.

b

BobSmith · Jan 19, 2012

bhaisahab said:
It would not only be correct, it would be better.

Why is it better? I try it out with other verbs and it doesn't seem better to me:

I'll go [to] find out why.
I'll go [to] drive the car.

as opposed to

I'll go to chaperone the kids.

does sound better... In this latter sense, “I’ll go to drive the car.” sounds like I’m attending because no one else knows how to drive.

Raymott · Jan 19, 2012

BobSmith said:
Why is it better? I try it out with other verbs and it doesn't seem better to me:

I'll go [to] find out why.
I'll go [to] drive the car.

as opposed to

I'll go to chaperone the kids.

does sound better... In this latter sense, “I’ll go to drive the car.” sounds like I’m attending because no one else knows how to drive.

It doesn't seem better to you because, being American, you're probably used to the "go do something" form.
I think "go to do" or "go and do" are more consistant with our use of other verbs in general, for example "Come and do the washing with me." I'm not sure if American English uses "Come do the washing" or "Come watch TV with me". If it does, it's introducing a new grammatial structure: verb of movement + main verb, which is not traditional in English.
"Go do that; Come do this; Sit eat your dinner; Stay do your homework ..."

So, the structure "Go do something" is an exception to traditional grammar, and perhaps this is why it is judged by some not to be as good as "Go and/to do something".

Barb_D · Jan 19, 2012

Raymott said:
I'm not sure if American English uses "Come do the washing" or "Come watch TV with me".

It certainly does.

Raymott said:
If it does, it's introducing a new grammatial structure: verb of movement + main verb, which is not traditional in English.
"Go do that; Come do this; Sit eat your dinner; Stay do your homework ..."

I don't make the leap from using "come" and 'go" to the other verbs. It's more like "Initiate this action" either toward me (Come watch TV with me) or away from me (Go scoop the cat box). I don't know anyone who is 100% comfortable with that use of come/go would be even slightly comfortable with "sit eat" or "stay do."

BobSmith · Jan 19, 2012

Barb_D said:
I don't know anyone who is 100% comfortable with that use of come/go would be even slightly comfortable with "sit eat" or "stay do."

Right, I'd hear that as two commands, "Sit. Eat."

Raymott · Jan 19, 2012

Barb_D said:
It certainly does.

I don't make the leap from using "come" and 'go" to the other verbs. It's more like "Initiate this action" either toward me (Come watch TV with me) or away from me (Go scoop the cat box). I don't know anyone who is 100% comfortable with that use of come/go would be even slightly comfortable with "sit eat" or "stay do."

I don't see it as a leap at all. Once you've accepted that grammatical structure (two ordinary nonfinite verbs together), you can justify, "Sit watch this movie with me; Drive see the States")

Not being comfortable with those sentences is not a grammatical judgement; you just haven't heard them enough yet. I don't see how 'go' and 'come' are special verbs at all. 'Sit' is also initiating an action; and it has just as much right to be used this way, as I see it, as 'go' and 'come' do - that is, the right to be used as an exception to traditional grammar until such verbs are numerous enough (and people are comfortable enough through hearing them) that they will insist that they are grammatical.

5jj · Jan 19, 2012

Raymott said:
I don't see it as a leap at all. Once you've accepted that grammatical structure (two ordinary nonfinite verbs together), you can justify, "Sit watch this movie with me; Drive see the States")
You may be able to justify it logically, but if peple don't say these things, then logic is irrelevant.

Logically, as we say, in BrE, "Here comes the bus" and "There goes the bus", we should be able to say "There stands the bus". But that last one is not natural English. Neither is "Sit watch this movie with me"

Not being comfortable with those sentences is not a grammatical judgement; you just haven't heard them enough yet.
I suspect that Barb hasn't heard them because nobody says them.
I don't see how 'go' and 'come' are special verbs at all.
Well, they (and BE) are 'special' in the 'here/there' construction I mentioned above.
'Sit' is also initiating an action; and it has just as much right to be used this way, as I see it, as 'go' and 'come' do - that is, the right to be used as an exception to traditional grammar until such verbs are numerous enough (and people are comfortable enough through hearing them) that they will insist that they are grammatical.
You may feel that they may have a 'right' to be so used, but if nobody does use them, then the whole thing is academic.

5

bhaisahab · Jan 19, 2012

I don't want to seem argumentative, but, if we are discussing what is acceptable in different varieties of English. I have heard more times than I can say, "Sit, watch this movie with me" or "Stay, have tea with me" etcetera, in Indian English.

5jj · Jan 19, 2012

bhaisahab said:
I have heard more times than I can say, "Sit, watch this movie with me" or "Stay, have tea with me" etcetera, in Indian English.

OK, but I note your comma. This seems to me to be not unlike BobSmith's suggestion in post #10.

BobK · Jan 20, 2012

Raymott: 'Sit' is also initiating an action; and it has just as much right to be used this way, as I see it, as 'go' and 'come' do - that is, the right to be used as an exception to traditional grammar until such verbs are numerous enough (and people are comfortable enough through hearing them) that they will insist that they are grammatical.
5jj: You may feel that they may have a 'right' to be so used, but if nobody does use them, then the whole thing is academic.

Just musing: In 'Come watch the movie with me' or 'Go get some milk', the movement is intrinsic to the command. In 'Sit [down [and]] watch the movie with me' it's not - the listener could, say, stay by the door wondering whether to go up and check his e-mail, and still have eyes on the movie. So sitting is required as part of the command; maybe this is why people who would say 'Come watch' don't say 'Sit watch' [without Bhai's comma] - sitting with eyes shut would not be acceptable.

But it would be possible to go [and] get a newspaper and forget the milk - they'd have obeyed the command 'Go get the milk' but imperfectly; getting milk was the purpose of the excursion.... Oh dear, this is sounding more and more like Saturday mornings chez BobK

b

allthewayanime · Jan 20, 2012

I would like to know if in the following sentences the 'to' would be correct:

Could I come over (to your house) to study with you?(Or should it be 'and'?)
Could you go to open the window?( or and and why?)

Barb_D · Jan 20, 2012

The PURPOSE of going is to study/to open the window. You want the infinitive there to show the purpose. Come over to study. Go to shut the window.

You'll certainly hear "go and..." but if you are writing it, I suggest you use "go to."

5jj · Jan 20, 2012

I see Barb's point, but my feeling is:

Could I come over (to your house) to study with you? to = in order to; purpose
Could I come over (to your house) and study with you? The idea of purpose is less explicit, but the implication is there. In my opinion, this is acceptable these days.
Could you go to open the window? to = in order to; purpose. Strictly speaking, this is correct, but sounds a little stuffy to me.
Could you go and open the window? Here too, the idea of purpose is less explicit, but the implication is clear. This one sounds to me more natural than the version with 'to'.[/QUOTE]

allthewayanime · Jan 20, 2012

Thank you. I asked this because my English teacher said that in interrogative questions when we have 2 verbs correlated between them we have to use only 'and'.Those sentences where in an English test and my choice with 'to' was incorrect so I really want to know if it's true what my teacher told me.

Raymott · Jan 20, 2012

allthewayanime said:
Thank you. I asked this because my English teacher said that in interrogative questions when we have 2 verbs correlated between them we have to use only 'and'.Those sentences where in an English test and my choice with 'to' was incorrect so I really want to know if it's true what my teacher told me.

Your question was "Will it be correct if I use 'I'll go to check it out' instead of 'I'll go check it out'?
Are you now saying that you intended to ask, "Will it be correct if I use 'I'll go to check it out' instead of 'I'll go and check is out'?"
If so, then I'd say that it would be correct to use "go to check it out" rather than "go and check it out" - but not essential, as you will have realised by now.

I'll go check it out

allthewayanime

Guest

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

VIP Member

Moderator

Senior Member

VIP Member

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

allthewayanime

Guest

Moderator

Moderator

allthewayanime

Guest

VIP Member

Similar threads