etymology - What is the origin of "GO + VERB + ING"?

The construction GO + V + ING is among one of the first things a learner is taught. Take for instance the verb swim, very often English expresses the activity in the present simple like this:

I go swimming twice a week

This construction is used with any ‘outdoorsy’ or sport activity that employs a verb, such as:

He goes skiing whenever he can
She goes dancing with her friends.
We go walking every day
They go surfing at/on weekends.

The verb GO is inflected to express different tenses such as

He didn't go swimming.
She's going fishing in the morning.
We went bowling last night.
He'd gone hunting before.
They've just gone rock climbing.

Shopping and drinking seem to break the mould, they are neither sports nor games, but you can think of them as being “outdoor” or pastime activities. You can go drinking with your mates, and while many Italians believe lo shopping is only the activity that young girls do in boutiques; people also go shopping for food etc. And nowadays, we go shopping online.

They've gone shopping.
Let's go drinking.

But GO + V + ING for the following activities is “ungrammatical” or dubious at best:

1. *I go playing tennis regularly. (maybe this one's OKish)


2. *You go working twice a week.


3. ?Let's go criketing/baseballing/basketballing (etc.)


4. *He goes cleaning his car at/on the weekend.


5. ?She goes painting outdoors every Sunday.


6. *You go washing up after dinner.


7. *Let's go eating out.


8. *Let's go seeing a movie.

---

Questions

• What is the origin of GO + V + ING? When was this construction first noted?


• Is this construction becoming increasingly flexible in English speaking countries?



• Are the expressions go shopping and go drinking considered isolated/unique cases? I am particularly interested in hearing about activities that are unrelated to sports/games/outdoors but use GO + V + ING.
  For example, @pazzo's suggestions: gamble and window shop.

Answer

The origin goes back to Old English, as far as the year 1000 or earlier (according to OED). OED gives OE (Old English) for the date section of the two earliest citations.

Definition:

With participle indicating a concomitant action or activity.

Earliest citation:

Þa eodon hi sprecende ymbe þæs hælendes þrowunge him betwynan.

_{Ælfric of Eynsham, Catholic Homilies}

Other examples in chronological order are: (OED)

• eodon biddende, OE


• eode singuynde, c1300


• go wryȝinge, c1380


• go hippinge, c1430


• go walkyng, 1483


• went preachyng, a1535


• wente askyng & serchyng, 1548


• go begging, 1615



• went looking about, 1658


• Went prancing, 1719


• went mumping, 1775


• went dancing, 1841


• went sailing, 1895


• went rushing down, 1930


• went sprawling, 1988


• went sniffing, 2013

OED mentions that the above definition is the formally similar sense of the following definition:

intr. To move, travel, or proceed (to somewhere) so as to perform a specified action, or for the purpose of a specified or implied activity.

    f. With verbal noun or gerund.

        (b) Without prefixed particle.

The earliest citation is from a1500:

Euery-on an hauke on honde ber, & went haukyng [c1330 Auch. riden on haukin] by þe ryuer.

Sir Orfeo, Harley

Other examples in chronological order are: (OED)

• went hunting, 1658


• have gone hunting and hawking, 1672


• go Hunting or Hawking, 1707


• go shooting of Birds, 1749


• goes gunning , 1846


• went gambling, 1861


• ‘go clamming’, 1887


• went automobiling, 1915


• went fishing, 1933



• going camping, 1960


• go clubbing, 2003

OED also gives:

(a) With prefixed a (also †on) Now arch. and regional.

The earliest citation is from c1300:

Þis child scholde wende An hontingue.

_{St. Kenelm (Laud) 148 in C. Horstmann Early S.-Eng. Legendary}

Conclusion:

It looks like this construction was first being used for actions, and then extended to activities. In OED, the earliest example with an outdoor activity is "go walking" (if we exclude the constructions with prefixed a). Then, we start seeing examples like "go hunting" starting from 1500s as sport-like activities. Although, the earlier form is with prefixed a. (go a hunting).

We are more familiar with this construction for sports and outdoor activities but it can be used with other leisure and indoor activities like bowling, shopping, dancing, clubbing etc.

verbs - Words like "do/does/did" to emphasize, but for "am/is/are"

So X said to Y:

I did tell you yesterday!

As far as I know, the word did there is to emphasize my point or tell him that I'm so sure I've told him the story yesterday. What I want to ask is, what's the word we may use to emphasize our point like that in a sentence with no verb? Like

You ARE the one who breaks it!

For emphasis, I capitalized the ARE, but is there any word that functions like did does in the previous sentence?

Answer

• Valery, verily I say unto you, you are indeed the messiah sent unto the world!


• Celery is indeed the food to eat to lose weight.


• I am indeed the one who killed her.


• You are truly a genius beyond normal proportions! Who would have thought of that?


• Veerasamy is verily a man of great faith.


• You are an absolute genius. How may I worship you?


• Laleetha and Gopisamee are true lovers of the divine kind.


• I have no freakin idea what you are talking about.

Verily is archaic use, and thus may be used in jest or sarcasm.

Can you use a ditransitive construction with the verb 'to attribute'?

Examples:

• John attributed his cold to his wife.




• Jane attributed wisdom to her father that he didn't really possess.

The above are standard transitive constructions. Can I then properly say the following using a ditransitive construction?

Examples:

• John attributed his wife his cold.




• Jane attributed her father ('with'?) wisdom he didn't really possess.

Answer

Yes, this is the correct use of the ditransitive.

There are the Attributive Ditransitive Verbs. Wikipedia describes them well:
Attributive ditransitive Verbs
There is a different kind of ditransitive verb, where the two objects are semantically an entity and a quality, a source and a result, etc. These verbs attribute one object to the other. In English, make, name, appoint, turn into and others are examples:

The state of New York made Hillary Clinton a Senator.
I will name him Galahad.
What is challenging is that the examples are actions that are relatively intangible.

Let's try "He gave the checkbook to his wife."
"He gave his wife the checkbook."

From here, you can see that checkbook could be replaced with cold.

    "Jane gave the theater tickets to her father that he didn't have." 
    "Jane gave the theater tickets her father that he didn't have." 

From here, theater tickets could be replaced with "the wisdom" or wisdom.

verbs - Have written and wrote. They mean the same thing?

I have written a letter.
I wrote a letter.

Do they mean the same thing or there is a difference?

If there is a difference then where should I use "have written" and "wrote"? (I'm also talking about every other verbs)

Answer

The tense and aspect are different. "Have written" is present perfect, whereas "wrote" is simple past. This website explains it pretty well.

Present Perfect refers to completed actions which endure to the present or whose effects are still relevant.

Use the past tense to indicate past events, prior conditions, or completed processes.

In these examples, you could say #1 and #3 whereas #2 and #4 are incorrect.

1. I have written a letter. Would you like to review it?



2. I wrote a letter. Would you like to review it?




3. I wrote a letter yesterday.



4. I have written a letter yesterday.

questions - Whom does that vehicle belong to? versus To whom does that vehicle belong?

I'm French and I saw the two versions of this question. Which one is the best way to express it? Are there differences of meaning between the two forms?
Thank you for your help.

Answer

The following extract from Oxford.com blogs make some interesting point about the common usage of ending a sentence with a preposition:

• There are numerous myths relating to grammatical dos and don’ts, many of which were drummed into us at school. The one that stubbornly refuses to budge from my mind is the diktat ‘never start a sentence with a conjunction such as and or but’. Another one is that one cannot end a sentence with a preposition. Let’s try to zap the one – sometimes referred to as stranded prepositions – and lay it to rest once and for all.

In fact, there are four main types of situation in which it is more natural to end a sentence or clause with a preposition:

• passive structures (she enjoys being fussed over)




• relative clauses (they must be convinced of the commitment that they are taking on)




• infinitive structures (Tom had no-one to play with)




• questions beginning with who, where, what, etc. (what music are you interested in?)

To sum up:

• the deferring of prepositions sounds perfectly natural and is part of standard English. Once you start moving the prepositions to their supposed ‘correct’ positions you find yourself with very stilted or even impossible sentences. Well-established and famous writers over the years, such as George Orwell, Anthony Burgess, and Julian Barnes, have been blithely stranding their prepositions to no ill effect: please feel free to go and end a sentence with a preposition!

Use of definite article before "authority"

I cannot find the rule for using the definitive article with the word "authority", is it always necessary and what is the grammar rule that I need to know?

Are both these sentences OK or just the second sentence? And what difference does it make. The more I look, the more confused I become.

The teacher has authority to change the data
or
The teacher has the authority to change the data

possessives - Should an apostrophe be used with a z at the end of a word?

I know that if a word ends with an s then it should be made plural or possessive by use of an apostrophe with no extra s (e.g. "Thomas Harris' book was a riveting read." as opposed to "Gary Barlow's voice is so distracting.")

What about if the word ends with a z. For example, would it be Gomez' album or Gomez's album?

Answer

There are various views regarding proper nouns ending in s.

The Times Style and Usage Guide (2011):

apostrophes with proper names/nouns ending in s that are singular, [...] where the final 's' is soft, use the 's' apostrophe, eg, Rabelais' writings, Delors' presidency

The Guardian Style Guide (2007):

The possessive in words and names ending in S normally takes an
apostrophe followed by a second S (Jones's, James's), but be guided by
pronunciation and use the plural apostrophe where it helps:
Mephistopheles', Waters', Hedges' rather than Mephistopheles's,
Waters's, Hedges's.

In both guides pronunciation has an impact on the use of s after the apostrophe. These guides, however, only consider names ending in s. I suspect, given the guiding principles stated in the guides, that these rules could be extended to names ending in z when the z is pronounced s.

In any case, I would write Gomez's as this is not difficult to pronounce.