# to go to - in how many languages is it the "near future"?



## theagx

TO GO TO:

English: I'm going to eat
French: Je vais manger
Spanish: Voy a comer
Portuguese: Vou comer
German: [I don't know]

In how many languages is "to go to" the near future tense? How did it come about? Why did English adopt it when it appears to be a Romance trend? Does it occur in Germanic languages? Is it Latin? Which language has the earliest use of "to go to"? How did it develop? Why is English's version the only one that uses the present progressive tense? Why does the "to go to" nuance work in the simple present in other languages? Like, in Spanish, why isn't "voy a comer" understood to mean "I go to eat" as in "I regularly leave this current place, in order that I get food"?

It's weird how "to go to" developed future properties in a few languages where "to come" didn't get the same universal treatment:

TO COME + VERB:

English: I come doing it (obscene) -- or -- I come to do it -- or I'm coming to do it
French: Je viens de le faire - (I just did it (I think. It's been a long time since I bothered learning Franglais, I mean, French)) -- or je viens a le faire (I am coming/ I've [just] come/I come to do it)
Spanish: Vengo haciéndolo (I'm in the middle of doing it, I'm doing it here and there) -- or vengo a hacerlo (I am coming/ I've [just] come/I come to do it)
Portuguese: [I don't know]
German: [I don't know]


----------



## Moseley

Maybe it took place during the Norman Conquest?


----------



## caelum

theagx said:


> TO COME + VERB:
> 
> English: I come doing it (obscene) -- or -- I come to do it -- or I'm coming to do it
> French: Je viens de le faire - (I just did it (I think. It's been a long time since I bothered learning Franglais, I mean, French)) -- or je viens a le faire (I am coming/ I've [just] come/I come to do it)
> Spanish: Vengo haciéndolo (I'm in the middle of doing it, I'm doing it here and there) -- or vengo a hacerlo (I am coming/ I've [just] come/I come to do it)
> Portuguese: [I don't know]
> German: [I don't know]



Your English example makes no sense at all. _Je viens de le faire _means only "I just finished (come from) doing it". The Spanish and Portuguese versions are _acabo de hacerlo/acabo de o fazer _meaning "I just finished doing it."

Point is these are all near past perfrasis and have absolutely nothing to with with the future.


----------



## إسكندراني

In several Arabic dialects, the future tense is formed using a word derived from one of several verbs meaning 'to go' (ra7, raye7, ghadi, etc.)


----------



## Peterdg

Well, it also exists in German and Dutch.

German: Ich gehe essen.
Dutch: Ik ga eten.

So, it's not a typical Romance language thing.


----------



## fdb

Peterdg said:


> Well, it also exists in German and Dutch.
> 
> German: Ich gehe essen.
> Dutch: Ik ga eten.
> 
> So, it's not a typical Romance language thing.



This is correct as far as Dutch is concerned, but German "ich gehe essen" means "I am going for a meal", not "I am going to eat".


----------



## marrish

You can form such immediate future/expression of intent in Urdu too. Example:
میں کجھ کہنے جا رہا ہوں ذرا غور سے سُنِئے۔ 
[_maiN kuchh kahne jaa rahaa huuN zaraa Ghaur se suni'e_] 
[mɛː~ kʊt͡ ʃʱ kɛɦne: ja: rəɦa: ɦu:~ zəra: ɣɔːr se: sʊnɪe:] - "I'm going to say something, just listen attentively."

'I'm going to eat' can be expressed in the same manner but it is somewhat ambiguous: it can mean that one is literally going somewhere to eat.


----------



## Dib

Bengali also has this construction.


----------



## Nino83

In Italian: _Vado/sto andando a mangiare_.


----------



## Stoggler

Welsh also has this construction:

Dw i'n mynd i fwyta - I'm going to eat

Don't know about other Celtic languages though


----------



## arielipi

In hebrew like in arabic you can have many forms for the same root; hebrew has several roots for 'to go to' depending on context


----------



## Lugubert

fdb said:


> This is correct as far as Dutch is concerned, but German "ich gehe essen" means "I am going for a meal", not "I am going to eat".


Swedish _Jag går och äter_ would normally mean "I am going for a meal", but might in a suitable context be interpreted as "I'm eating while walking."

Trying to make a Swedish sentence with a future "go", I mostly end up with fairly literal walking or travelling plus a quite normal future marker. Also, _Jag går och handlar_ "I'm now off to go shopping".


----------



## fdb

Nino83 said:


> In Italian: _Vado/sto andando a mangiare_.



Yes, but not in the meaning of a proximate future, which we are discussing here.


----------



## Nino83

It depends on the context, for example _tra poco vado a mangiare, vuoi venire?_ but, yes, it is not as in other languages.


----------



## francisgranada

In Hungarian_ megyek enni_ (lit. I go to eat). But it depends on the context, and I think this usage in Hungarian is nearer to Italian than to Spanish.


----------



## theagx

This is so interesting. I wonder where it originated. Also..



> Your English example makes no sense at all. _Je viens de le faire means only "I just finished (come from) doing it". The Spanish and Portuguese versions are acabo de hacerlo/acabo de o fazer meaning "I just finished doing it."
> _



I know. My point was that "to go to" seems to have near future properties in many languages, whereas "to come" doesn't have recent past properties -- or, "to leave" or "to arrive" (for example) do not have some conditional or imperative or whatever properties. I mean that "to go to" carries the same idiomatic "value" in multiple languages wheres no other verbs really do in quite the same way.


----------



## origumi

Strange as it may sound, in modern Hebrew we prefer the verb "stand" for near future. E.g. עומד לרדת גשם = "standing to fall rain" = rain is gonna fall. Verb "go" also works but less often.


----------



## berndf

theagx said:


> I mean that "to go to" carries the same idiomatic "value" in multiple languages.


It does, though you have to be careful in your analysis. As said before, in Italian _vado mangare_ and German _ich gehe essen_, etc. the respective verbs meaning_ to go_ are meant literally (it means you literally _go_ somewhere (to a restaurant, etc) to have a meal) and aren't just auxiliaries to express (near) future like in English and French.


----------



## caelum

theagx said:


> This is so interesting. I wonder where it originated. Also..
> 
> 
> 
> I know. My point was that "to go to" seems to have near future properties in many languages, whereas "to come" doesn't have recent past properties



That's not totally true. In English, like in French (though, admittedly, not as frequently), we use _to come from_ to reference the recent past.

Ex. I'm wet because I just came from washing my car.
Je suis mouillé parce que je viens de laver ma voiture.


----------



## berndf

caelum said:


> That's not totally true. In English, like in French (though, admittedly, not as frequently), we use _to come from_ to reference the recent past.
> 
> Ex. I'm wet because I just came from washing my car.
> Je suis mouillé parce que je viens de laver ma voiture.


Sorry, but this works only because _come _has its literal meaning; you really _come_ (arrive from a different place) from washing your car, and is not an auxiliary verb that merely expresses tense. Think of a sentence where you don't move physically, and the analogy breaks down:
_Je viens de me réveiller.
I come from waking up._


----------



## Dan2

theagx said:


> English: I'm going to eat
> 
> In how many languages is "to go to" the *near future* tense? ... Why did English adopt it


Just a couple of comments.  As I know you know, theagx, but just to avoid confusing English learners, in English it's only "to be going to" that serves as a future former, not "to go to".

Also, I don't perceive "be going to" as a "near-future" tense, compared to the other future auxiliary, "will" (commonly contracted to "'ll").  For example:
_I'll call him when I finish eating_ (minutes in the future)
_I'm going to be a doctor when I grow up_ (years in the future)

Another observation: while "be going to" usually forms a future tense, a literal interpretation is also possible.  Walking out the door I might say to my wife,
_I'm going to help Bill fix his car; I'll be back in a couple of hours.
_(Unlike the future former, the literal "going to" doesn't optionally contract to "gonna".)


theagx said:


> It's weird how "to go to"  developed future properties in a few languages where "to come" didn't  get the same universal treatment


(I don't think you mean "universal".) As for "come", its cognate words in Norwegian ("komme") and, especially in Swedish ("komma"), are used to form the future.  The fact that these languages have only a small fraction of the speaker base of English doesn't make this usage any less significant.



berndf said:


> Sorry, but this works only because _come _has its literal, you really _come_  (arrive from a different place) from washing your car, and is not an  auxiliary verb that merely expresses tense. Think of a sentence where  you don't move physically, and the analogy breaks down:
> _Je viens de me réveiller.
> I come from waking up._


I see this the same as berndf does.


----------



## myšlenka

theagx said:


> In how many languages is "to go to" the near future tense? How did it come about? [....]
> 
> It's weird how "to go to" developed future properties in a few languages where "to come" didn't get the same universal treatment:


It's not uncommon for verbs of motion to develop into tense and aspectual markers in languages. The fact that English uses _to be going to_ to express futurity while Scandinavian languages use _å komme til_ (to come to) to express a similar thing is an accident of history. However, I would expect that there are more languages using _to go_ to express this meaning than _to come_ because of the basic semantics of the verbs in question but in principle there is nothing universal about _to go_.


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> Also, I don't perceive "be going to" as a "near-future" tense, compared to the other future auxiliary, "will" (commonly contracted to "'ll").  For example:
> _I'll call him when I finish eating_ (minutes in the future)
> _I'm going to be a doctor when I grow up_ (years in the future)


I would argue, though, that in the vast majority of cases, _be going to _expresses near future. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are right and the near-future semantics of those use cases is incidental and not characteristic. How you you define the the essential difference between the _will_-future and the _be going to_-future? Maybe an aspect difference? _Will_-future = eventive, describing an event in the future unrelated to the present and _be going to_-future as progressive, describing a process leading from the present to the future (not to be confused with the future-progressive _will be_+present participle that expresses a progressive action/state in the future unrelated to the present)?


----------



## Nino83

In schoolbooks this difference is explained in this way. 
_To be going to_ means an intention, a program (something already decided) while _will_ means a promise or it is used when someone decides to do something, saying that he'll do that action. 

_I'm going to study in Paris next year._ (The speaker has already decided) 
_I'll help you (do something) tomorrow_. (Now, in this moment, he decides to help his friend tomorrow) 

It doesn't seem to be a near future matter.


----------



## arielipi

origumi said:


> Strange as it may sound, in modern Hebrew we prefer the verb "stand" for near future. E.g. עומד לרדת גשם = "standing to fall rain" = rain is gonna fall. Verb "go" also works but less often.


I cant think of any uses of this word like that but 'about to come' uses.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> In schoolbooks this difference is explained in this way.
> _To be going to_ means an intention, a program (something already decided) while _will_ means a promise or it is used when someone decides to do something, saying that he'll do that action.


That sounds strange to me as e.g.
_I will go to the cinema
_is in principle ambiguous and can mean either of these two:
(1) _Andrò al cinima.
_(2) _Voglio andare al cinima.
_Even though (1) is the usual meaning.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> _I will go to the cinema
> _is in principle ambiguous and can mean either of these two:
> (1) _Andrò al cinima.
> _(2) _Voglio andare al cinima.
> _Even though (1) is the usual meaning.



Yes, the meaning is always _Andrò al cinema_, but if one has already decided to do it he uses _to be going to_. 

_What an interesting film! I'll go to the cinema to see it tomorrow_. (He decides now) 
_What are you going to do next Saturday? I'm going to the cinema_. (He has already dediced to go to the cinema when he tells it to his friend) 

http://www.englishgrammarsecrets.com/goingtoorwill/menu.php

_At the moment of making a decision, use 'will'.  Once you have made the decision, talk about it using 'going to'._

I'm curious to know what native speakers say about it (and to know whether what is taught in Italian schools fits or not).


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Yes, the meaning is always _Andrò al cinema..._


No, usually: yes, always: no. The original meaning of _I will_ (i.e. _voglio) _does play a role in modern usage; but which one precisely and how uniform this is among speakers, I am not sure of... yet.


----------



## Egmont

Pimsleur language lessons, in a few languages I've looked at, uses the "to go" construction instead of the future because it eliminates the need to learn the future tense of verbs. As long as one can conjugate the present tense of "to go," one can express future concepts. 

(Maybe they get into the future tense in their third level. I haven't progressed that far in any of them yet.)


----------

