Yes either 'go and see' or 'go to see' should be accepted. An Englishman would never use the expression 'go see' -- it's an Americanism.
To my ears, "go see" is hideous English! Why can't DL at least ACCEPT the English spoken in England, even if they prefer the American version?
Well, it's not immediately obvious where these published usage examples originate, but there are many: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22go+see+a+doctor%22
Here's a notable passage from the Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language:
What I would be saying, in either of those cases, would be false if he were never to go see the doctor. But if (4b) is truth evaluable at all, then its truth does not depend on whether he does in fact go see the doctor in the future, but only on whether I hope (now) that he will go see the doctor in the future. - Delia Graff Fara, "Adverbs" p. 409
Shakespeare would seem to disagree:
- Will you go see the order of the course? - Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2
- Will you go see her? - All's Well that Ends Well, Act 3, Scene 6
- ... I'll go see this Italian... - Cymbeline, Act 2, Scene 1
- Shall we go see the reliques of this town? / To-morrow, sir: best first go see your lodging. - Twelfth Night, Act 3, Scene 3
I still remember my high school English teacher telling us, her students, that it should be "to go to (do something)", not "to go and (do something)".
Thinking about it carefully, the reason is because "and" is a conjunction. When used with verbs, it indicates that the actions occur at the same time. But, in this example, you are first "going", then you are "seeing the doctor". The actions happen sequentially. You could probably "go and run" to the store, however, since the action of "going" and "running" happen simultaneously.
When the actions you are speaking about occur sequentially, then "to go to (do something)" is correct. It might be best thought of as "going in order to (do something)", quite like the Dutch construction "om te" (e.g. "Ik ga om kaartjes te kopen" = "I go to buy tickets").
Another example of the "to go to (do something)" construction:
"Last night, I went to see a movie with my friends." (not "Last night, I went and saw a movie with my friends."; though you could say "I went out last night. I saw a movie with my friends."; but, if you had gone out "in order to" see the movie, it should be "went to", not "went and".)
As for "to go see", it does not have the same problems as "to go and see", though it does lose the "in order to" sense. However, it is common nowadays to hear "to go see".
You would go to a shop or run to a shop. Two nations divided by a common language.
English has spread and evolved in many different countries. This isn't just British English translation, but American English, NZ English, Aus English, South African English etc.
It's grammatically incorrect. You may say it but it is colloquial. It should be 'go to see' or 'go and see'.
Why don't you go see for yourself that you can go and see and go to see things in a different light if you just stop and think for a moment.
It's colloquial and not grammatically correct. It should be 'go to see' or 'go and see'.
But one of the 'another correct solution is' was
I was supposed to go to
Doesn't that mean exactly the same thing as alan's commeNT?
Not quite. I think "I was supposed to" does not necessarily mean that you didn't, or that it was absolutely necessary.
I used to have to go to the doctor yesterday - This English translation is ridiculous - I used to have to go see the doctor - in the past - ok - but I had to go see the doctor yesterday - yesterday is a single point in time
Well, the best the OED can say on the matter is that under "go" http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/79544:
- 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.
a. In the infinitive, imperative, and †present subjunctive (as go), with bare infinitive. Now colloq. (chiefly N. Amer.) (nonstandard in British English), often with the sense of motion weakened or absent. Also in various imprecatory phrases (in the imperative or optative) used to express dismissal, contempt, etc., as go chase yourself (see chase v.1 7c), go fly a kite (see fly v.1 5), ...
... and I left off the final one, or I'll be censored.
In the whole text of that entry, under the attributions, there is a single instance using "go see":
2007 R. Milward Apples xvii. 172 You wanna go see Eve?
Mind you, he's an English novelist, so maybe we should admit that anything published by such a writer automatically becomes a non-Americanism?
(P.S. There are two more instances under "see v.", but both are from Coriolanus and different expressions from the one we are talking about.)
Bravo on the research. My remark was addressed to the quoted sentence, "I used to have to go to the doctor yesterday", which, as the OP said, is ridiculous - and not an Americanism! :-)
Sorry. I did not read this thread carefully enough. My apologies.
I have given up answering this translation with the natural (to me) "I had to go to see a doctor yesterday", because it always marks it wrong (so far). I refuse to leave out the second "to". I have to use "I had to visit a doctor yesterday", because that is marked correct, even though it is hardly an entirely accurate translation, to my mind. :)
Pardon my sloppy response. I was referring to the "go see" vs. "go to see" usages.
It is putting the go and the see together which is incorrect in British English. og and see or go to see
just wondering why this is used here as an example of the imperfect past. It sounds like a specific event - would this not be a case for passé composé? I am clearly not understanding something...
The imperfect tense applies to the need (devoir), not the action of going.
but the need is also in the past tense; i went yesterday, so i no longer plan to, and i also no longer need to go (not a continuing action from the past)
Can someone tell me why "I had to visit a doctor yesterday." is incorrect? Even when I float over "aller voir", it suggests that response.
I had to visit a doctor yesterday was refused. Surely a "go see" is a visit.
'we go to see' is correct in American English also, but it has been slanged down to go see. its just quicker, so everyone says it but its technically wrong :p
Yesterday I had to go and see a doctor. Oh come on this is really annoying nitpicking. You can't translate mot-a-mot
That can be hard, but I think Duolingo wants us to keep the translation as close as possible to the same word order. :)
Can "voir" be used in the sense of "visit" like "see" can in English, because I have never seen it used this way. I always thought the French verb "voir" strictly means to lay eyes upon.
Duo corrected my sentence to I'd to go see my doctor yesterday. I don't think this sounds okay at all to this native speaker !
I'd is a contraction of "I had" and also a contraction of "I would", I have only rarely heard it used for "I had" in spoken speech, it is easy enough to say "I had" so most people don't say I'd for "I had". The Duolingo sentence is correct, even though it does sound weird.
i had written" I had to see the doctor yesterday" and the correction was, " I had to see one doctor yesterday" We don't say that.
I had to see the doctor yesterday. is a wrong translation of the French sentence Je devais voir un docteur hier., I had to see a doctor yesterday. is a good one.
But here it's devoir aller voir... so I had to go to see a doctor yesterday.
Me too, I was just explaining why the doctor was wrong and that you missed one verb.
That's a subtlety of the English language. 'The doctor' can mean a specific doctor or any doctor depending on the context.
I typed in "I had to see a doctor yesterday" because that is what I would say.. and it gave me the "you blew it" bleep! :(
Can we just say ''Je devais voir un docteur hier."? Adding ''aller'' makes the sentence sound verbose.
Another vote against the "go see" construct. When I need to see a doctor, I go to see them.
How about "I had need to go to see a doctor yesterday"? It was not accepted, but to me this expresses the ongoing nature of the past imperfect that the French sentence conveys.
Alternatively, "I used to need to go to see a doctor yesterday (but I no longer do now)". Merci!
There may be localities where your "I had need to go..." is a common usage, but to me it sounds very odd, or at least very old-fashioned. I don't know anyone who would say, "I had need to" - and I know some pretty old-fashioned people ;-). We would say, "I needed".
That said, I don't feel quite right about using "need" at all in this sentence, although that may just be a question of taste. It seems a little too intense.
As for "I used to need to go to see a doctor yesterday", that is an error. "Used to" refers to a habitual state or a repeated event and doesn't work with a word like "yesterday" which references a specific point in time. "I used to need to go to see a doctor every week" is fine, but not "...yesterday".
My comprehension of the subtleties of the imparfait is, if you will, imperfect, so I can't say exactly why "devoir" is in the imparfait in this sentence.
Because that skips the "devoir" part of the French sentence. "Yesterday, I went to the doctor" = Hier, je suis alleé voir le docteur."
I had to see a doctor yesterday. The answer is in American English, I was marked as incorrect for using English English.
Can someone tell me why "I had to see the doctor yesterday" is wrong, I know that it is definite not indefinite but in English we would say "went to see THE doctor.
'I had to see a doctor yesterday' is quite acceptable english, In England. no need for 'go' to be involved even tho 'to go to' is correct, i cannot see it as a 'hard fast rule.
I wonder, what nationality is the person who is responsible for the translations from French to English in these lessons? He can't be English. English is not my mother tongue, but I get rather annoyed sometimes when I see e.g. "go see a doctor" -
to me "go and see" is preferable and correct, and yet i was corrected
Doesn't the English version, "I had to go see a doctor yesterday", imply that you did so.
And doesn't the French version, "Je devais aller voir un docteur hier", imply you had to, but did not do so?
The differences in connotations are tripping me up.
Since Duolingo suggested that "aller voir" means "visit", I translated the sentence as, "I had to visit the doctor yesterday". A "visit" to the doctor is a very common American euphemism. Perhaps the same is true in French? N'est pas ?
My translation "I had to visit a doctor yesterday" should have been accepted. I know aller = to go, but "go" is not necessary in the English translation.
It seems "I had to go to see the doctor yesterday " is still not accepted as of today. I have reported it! As previously pointed out the accepted, Americanized answer is horrid.
This translation is wrong in British English. An English person would never say this. We would say "I had to see a doctor yesterday" or "I had to go and see a doctor yesterday".
"I had to go see a doctor yesterday"
Yes! I remembered the American English. Now I hope it doesn't stick. "Go see" sounds so strange.
Absolutely agree with Nicholas_Keen. English people do not say "go see". It is an Americanism. Also, there seems quite a few people objecting (or commenting) on the phrase "go see" being, in Duolingo's opinion, the correct usage. It is not correct English as spoken in England or other English speaking countries (Australia, New Zealand).
Another "go see" sentence which we would not use in English English. Yes for the Americans, no for us.
'go see' is not English I put 'visit' which 'aller voir' translated to, it was marked incorrect.
Should have gone to see a doctor. means it didn't happen, Had to see a doctor, means you were required to.
So I should have gone to see a doctor yesterday would be a completely wrong translation.
'I should have gone to see the doctor yesterday' is more natural in English English.
Well, first of all, "médecine" is "medicine" in English.
But you were probably thinking of "médecin". DuoLingo seems to use "docteur" quite regularly where I would have thought "médecin" more appropriate. I've done a fair bit of checking around on the internet, and a popular explanation for the distinction is that "médecin" is a profession, while "Docteur" is a title. You see a "médecin" about your nagging cough, but when he comes into the room, you say, "Bonjour, Docteur". Also, a "médecin" is always a "docteur" (i.e., a person with a PhD), but a "docteur" is not necessarily a "médecin". Anybody who holds a doctorate is a "docteur".
I did read a few remarks that seem to indicate that the distinction is blurring a bit, but then this was posted on a WordReference forum only two months ago:
"Except when it is used as a title, as in : "Bonjour, Docteur", I would advise non-natives to use "médecin" systematically : il faut que je prenne un rendez-vous chez le médecin / Je vais appeler le médecin / le médecin m'a dit que", etc."
DianaM merci bien :)
Je ne comprends rien ! Un coup c'est " I wanted " puis " I was required " + " I was making " ou " be able " avec un glissement de " could " en force ! Mais c'est quoi ce temps qui rend fou ?!!!?
L'anglais, dès que tu crois maîtriser un sujet, des variantes viennent te montrer qu'en fait non, tu ne le maîtrisais pas du tout. Flûte ! Zut ! Marre !
I believe it's optional but fairly often heard. See this page: http://french.about.com/library/pronunciation/bl-liaisons-o.htm
None, but a difference in usage: "devais" goes with "je", and "devez" with "vous". And "devais" is imperfect tense, "devez" present.
I wrote "I should have gone to see a doctor yesterday" and it's wrong. Would a translation of that be "Je devrais été aller"? And is that the conditional perfect tense?
I put "yesterday" in front of the proposition and it turned out that it's wrong. Should I translate always mot-a-mot?
My biggest complaint is that this one, along with some previous phrases, should use the passé composé rather than the imparfait. The action happened at a specific point in the past (yesterday), and the action was completed. It is not something that happened habitually in the past, or an action that meets any of the other reasons that necessitate the imparfait. Donc, "J'ai dû aller voir un docteur hier." Ditto for some previous phrases that included "hier."
"I had to go see a doctor" and "I had to see a doctor" should both be accepted. They are both perfectly normal in American English.
Can "I had to go to see a doctor yesterday" be translated into passé composé instead of imparfait?
"I had to see a doctor yesterday" is incorrect apparently.
Why wasn't my answer accepted?
Since this is a completed action in the past, why would use imperfect here? Yesterday and the days before that I had to go. Yesterday I went. Today, everything about that -- the need and the going -- is complete. So passe compose, no?