 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009I am going to be talking about
Hello: ---- ON RELIGION; Clues to Romney Speech - New York Times 4 Dec 2007 ... ''I am going to be talking about the role of religion, faith in America and in a free society.'' While he may touch lightly on questions ... ------- Now, googling over the New York Times, the stats 74,000 from nytimes.com for "am going to talk about" 5 from nytimes.com for "am going to be talking about" would tell us that the 2nd, the sequence of two "ing-forms," isn't considered too nice by many. Romney's reason for using the 2nd progressive "to be talking" is probably to place the readers in the mood of mentally watching his speech as it develops, to implicate them, so I think it's justified. Many would say that the first progressive, "going," is enough for that though. How about it? -- Thanks. Marius Hancu > Now, googling over the New York Times, the stats > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would tell us that the 2nd, the sequence of two "ing-forms," isn't > considered too nice by many. The numbers demonstrate that the first form is 15,000 times more frequent than the second. The numbers offer no evidence one form is less "nice" than another. > Romney's reason for using the 2nd progressive "to be talking" is > probably to place the readers in the mood of mentally watching his > speech as it develops, to implicate them, so I think it's justified. A speaker's choice of the rarer form does not ipso facto identify the reason for his choice. Whatever reasons there may be, they include the whole context of the language as well as the activity of a single man's mind, viz. rhetorical style (introducing the topic of the speech) as well as the points he plans to make about the topic.  SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > The numbers demonstrate that the first form is 15,000 times > more frequent than the second. The numbers offer no > evidence one form is less "nice" than another. OK, when would _you_ use the 2nd, if ever? -- Thanks. Marius Hancu >> googling over the New York Times, the stats >> >> 74,000 from nytimes.com for "am going to talk about" >> 5 from nytimes.com for "am going to be talking about" > > The numbers demonstrate that the first form is 15,000 times > > more frequent than the second. The numbers offer no > > evidence one form is less "nice" than another. > > OK, when would _you_ use the 2nd, if ever? The answer is obvious: we use the scarcer variant when and if the context suggests it is fitter for the purpose than the commoner. Without concrete contexts, no fragment of English displays abstract values. (Without context, we have no objective reason to prefer one form over another. We know that two successive present participles, -ing and -ing, sound as a "jingle," usually to be avoided. But we also know we sometimes discover good reasons to break the "rules" of style.) SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >>> googling over the New York Times, the stats >>> >>> 74,000 from nytimes.com for "am going to talk about" >>> 5 from nytimes.com for "am going to be talking about" >> > The numbers demonstrate that the first form is 15,000 times >> > more frequent than the second. The numbers offer no >> > evidence one form is less "nice" than another. >> >> OK, when would _you_ use the 2nd, if ever? > The answer is obvious: we use the scarcer variant when > and if the context suggests it is fitter for the purpose than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > know we sometimes discover good reasons to break > the "rules" of style.) There is really no problem with *-ing *-ing: I'm going swimming. I'm going camping. I'm going running. But in these cases "going" has at least some of the sense of "moving." When "going" expresses the future tense, that's where the infinitive comes in. I'm going to walk. (Could be said by a person in physical therapy, who does not at present have the power to walk.) But also, I'm going to go walking. Future+movement. Details are left as an exercise for the reader. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5789, 1993 168 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't. >> The numbers demonstrate that the first form is 15,000 times >> more frequent than the second. The numbers offer no >> evidence one form is less "nice" than another. > > OK, when would _you_ use the 2nd, if ever? Though you emphasize your wish to get a second response from Don, I will venture to say that the second (using "am going to be talking about"), in my usage, occurs when I am explaining my activities, with another activity occuring in the meantime. My activity "going to be talking about" is the more immediate, but the other activity ("while my assistant is setting up the projector") progresses without interruption. That is when I _think_ I would use the "ing-ing" structure. But in the flow of conversation, that structure might occur accidentally, and no one would blink an eye. > >> The numbers demonstrate that the first form is 15,000 times > >> more frequent than the second. The numbers offer no [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > flow of conversation, that structure might occur accidentally, and no > one would blink an eye. Absolutely. And I think "am going to be talking about" sounds grander, which is always a good thing. > And I think "am going to be talking about" sounds grander, > which is always a good thing. I appreciate being told about such distinctions. Thanks. Marius Hancu Quoth "Pat Durkin" <durk183@sbc.com>, and I quote: >>> The numbers demonstrate that the first form is 15,000 times >>> more frequent than the second. The numbers offer no [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >flow of conversation, that structure might occur accidentally, and no >one would blink an eye. A good writer might rephrase an "ing-ing" structure like this to avoid the repetition, but in speech, as you say, no one would notice. The echo effect would disappear in many people's speech anyway: "I'm gonna be talking about...". SignatureJames > On Jul 7, 6:43 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > flow of conversation, that structure might occur accidentally, and no > one would blink an eye. This is when I would be doing too. Thank you for the reinforcement:-) Thank you all. Marius Hancu > Many would say that the first progressive, "going," is enough for that > though. Nope. "Going to" doesn't lend any progressive sense to the verb it assists. It's just an informal alternative to "will" for forming future tenses. If you compare simple to simple and progressive to progressive, "going to" comes out a little *higher* in relative frequency in the progressive in NY Times usage: "will be talking" 1,450 vs. "going to be talking" 1,100 (43%) "will talk" 13,100 vs. "going to talk" only 6,930 (35%) I'd guess this is because, in a journalistic context, the future progressive itself signals an informal tone, so it calls for an informal form. Notice how much less it's used overall. In general use, the "ing-ing" construction is avoided, just because of the awkward repetition: "will be talking" 1,680k vs. "going to be talking" 428k (25%) "will be going" 8,430k vs. "going to be going" 581k ( 7%) ¬R Marius Hancu: > ---- > ON RELIGION; Clues to Romney Speech - New York Times [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 74,000 from nytimes.com for "am going to talk about" ...are badly misleading. "Am going to talk about" just isn't that common an expression in newspaper articles, so there has to be something wrong here. Sometimes Google's estimated hit counts are way too large, and this is an example of that. If you follow the "next" link, you will see that there are actually only 18 hits -- this is one of the worst overestimates that I've seen. If you ask to see the "very similar" hits, the estimated total goes back up to about 75,000, but follow the "next" links and there are actually only 22. > 5 from nytimes.com for "am going to be talking about" Similarly on this second query, try following the link requesting similar pages. This time it shows over 9,000 hits -- but if you hit "next', the number comes back down to 14. The difference from the shorter phrase is no doubt that the original query did not produce even the 10 hits that the basic results page shows, so it was able to correct any overestimate before you saw the results. > Romney's reason for using the 2nd progressive "to be talking" is > probably to place the readers in the mood of mentally watching his > speech as it develops... Yes, I agree. The progressive tense here suggests an extended activity and creates that expectation. > so I think it's justified. Nothing needs to be "justified"; both versions are perfectly idiomatic. I think the "be talking" version gives a slightly less formal tone. SignatureMark Brader "It's simply a matter of style, and while there Toronto are many wrong styles, there really isn't any msb@vex.net one right style." -- Ray Butterworth My text in this article is in the public domain. > Sometimes Google's estimated hit counts are way too large, and this > is an example of that. Sorry, you're right, I forgot to turn to the 2nd page. > > Romney's reason for using the 2nd progressive "to be talking" is > > probably to place the readers in the mood of mentally watching his > > speech as it develops... > > Yes, I agree. The progressive tense here suggests an extended activity > and creates that expectation. That was also my take to myself. Thanks. Marius Hancu |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.