[Grammar] My teacher:"GOING TO GO/GOING TO COME are not grammatically correct

[tom3m]

I have a problem with seemingly no solution. I attend grammar school and our teacher says that GOING TO GO and GOING TO COME is not grammatically correct. However according to him it is used. So I am quite confused because on the internet I found some sources where GOING TO GO is claimed to be correct. I have also discussed this with plenty of other teachers but the answers are very different. So they are in textbooks and other materials. So please can somebody finally tell me the truth about this grammar.

Thank you in advance

 

[5jj]

Some people feel that 'going to go' and 'going to come' are not particularly elegant constructions. They are entitled to their opinions, and if they choose not to use them, fine. However, they are grammatically acceptable full stop (or period)

 

[Rover_KE]

'I'm going to go away for a few days.'

'He's going to come home from Iraq soon.'

If somebody wants to tell me those examples are ungrammatical I'd be interested to hear their reasoning.

Rover

 

[5jj]

If somebody wants to tell me those examples are ungrammatical I'd be interested to hear their reasoning.

Too slow. Again!

 

[tom3m]

'I'm going to go away for a few days.'

'He's going to come home from Iraq soon.'

If somebody wants to tell me those examples are ungrammatical I'd be interested to hear their reasoning.

Rover

His reason is that he has lived in Great Britain for 5 years and the second reason is : "It's English." which is very revealing. :roll:

 

[5jj]

His reason is that he has lived in Great Britain for 5 years and the second reason is : "It's English." which is very revealing. :roll:

I'm sorry, but I don't follow.

 

[Rover_KE]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow.

That makes two of us.

Rover

 

[BobK]

His reason is that he has lived in Great Britain for 5 years and the second reason is : "It's English." which is very revealing. :roll:

I think this 'he' is not Rover, but the alleged teacher.

But tom3m's question defines itself as unanswerable:

I have also discussed this with plenty of other teachers but the answers are very different. So they are in textbooks and other materials. So please can somebody finally tell me the truth about this grammar.

That is, there are conflicting opinions out there.Why should an answer here do any more than add to the conflict :?:

I agree with 5jj and Rover. We're confident that we're right. Those two assertions of your teachers are inconsequential, unconvincing, irrelevant, fatuous, and laughable. He's just wrong.

But I don't see why that would make any difference to you!

b

 

[5jj]

Those two assertions of your teachers are inconsequential, unconvincing, irrelevant, fatuous, and laughable. He's just wrong.

I think that sums it up quite well.

 

[Tdol]

I think your teacher may have turned a recommendation into a rule- some people think that the repetition in going to go makes it a clumsy phrase that can be shortened, but it is both grammatically correct and used by speakers. I have seen people recommend shortening the form, but for going to go and not for going to come.

As a counterargument, the dissenting posters in this thread will add up to over a century of living in Britain, so you can do the math. ;-)

 

[5jj]

the dissenting posters in this thread will add up to over a century of living in Britain, so you can do the math.

I know that I am not as young as I used to be, but there's no need to rub it in.

 

[riquecohen]

This AmE-speaker agrees with all the comments made by my British friends.

 

[Tdol]

I know that I am not as young as I used to be, but there's no need to rub it in.

I thought that I was erring on the side of politeness and delicacy, as you're not the only one who's not-as. ;-)