4

I was amused by the line “I got to thinking about something” in the following answer to the question, “You don't want to answer this word-placement question, now do you?” which I saw this morning in my inbox from Stack Exchange:

“Prompted by this question I got to thinking about the placement of the word now. If it's placed before the comma, it refers to an immediate condition: You don't want to answer this word-placement...”

Does “get to doing [something]” mean “come to doing [something]” or “begin to do [something]”?

Though I think it’s a too naive question for native English speakers, how different is “I got to thinking about something” from “I got to think about something”? Does it become totally different with and without the ‘ing’?

Community
  • 1
Yoichi Oishi
  • 70,211

1 Answers1

7

There are two different senses here. The more common sense (and form) is...

Once everyone had left, I got to thinking about what had happened.

...where “I got to thinking” could be replaced by “[It came about that] I started thinking”. There's no particular implication that the presence of others somehow prevented me from thinking.

But to my mind, in the less common form...

Once everyone had left, I got to think about what had happened.

... “I got to think” could reasonably be replaced by “I [finally] got [the chance to] think...”.

The first form usually means “I fell to/started thinking”, the second “I was able to think”.

Note that my examples are in the past. In the present, there's a third possible meaning...

Once everyone has left, I [have] got to think about what has happened.

In this context, “[have] got to” can be replaced by “must” (expressing present/future obligation). As Peter Shor notes below, “have” is often omitted in casual speech (in present tense; the past tense form would normally omit “got” and keep “had”).

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • FumbleFingers. I have a memory that I learned that “get / have to” means “must” at middle school 67 -8 years ago. Doesn’t the second also mean “I had to think (about) / I was obliged to think (about)”? – Yoichi Oishi Jan 08 '13 at 23:03
  • The second carries the meaning that I "had the opportunity to" think but might have had other more pressing tasks that had also been delayed by the visitors. There is no compulsion or obligation to think rather than (for example) eat or write. – Fortiter Jan 09 '13 at 00:43
  • 1
    @Yoichi: to make it mean "must", you need to use have got, and this construction only exists in present tense. So it needs to be: Once everyone has left, I have got to think about what happened. This have is commonly left out by Americans, but doing so is considered poor grammar. – Peter Shor Jan 09 '13 at 00:58
  • @YoichiOishi: the second means "I was happily had the opportunity to think about...". The minimal pair is: "I gotta go to work" (I have to go to work) and "I get to go to work" (I look forward to going to work). hm here's more nuance here..."I gotta think about..." I -must- think about it; "I got to think about..." (past tense of get) I was given the chance to think about... – Mitch Jan 09 '13 at 01:02
  • @Peter, Yoichi: The [have] got to [do something] meaning only applies to present/future obligations. Which feasibly could have applied in OP's citation - though obviously it didn't. I wasn't even thinking about that sense when I changed the wording in my examples, but since mine was in the pluperfect it would have been "I had* [got] to think". I know people drop have* and keep got with present/future, but they'd much more likely go the other way around with past tense. Whatever - I'll add the point. – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '13 at 01:24
  • @Mitch: I don't think "On Monday I get to [do something]" necessarily means you look forward to it. More like you "get the chance to do it", or even just "get to that point in time when the act will take place". It might even be something bad - "On Monday I get to find out if they gonna hang me". – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '13 at 01:39
  • 1
    I think I'd say that there were two different constructions here. One is get to V+inf, and the other is get to V+ing. The inf construction is a deontic modal meaning 'be allowed to V'; the gerund construction is a motion metaphor meaning 'reach a certain point in a process'. Test: you can generally substitute get around for simple get in the gerund construction. – John Lawler Jan 09 '13 at 01:56
  • 1
    @John: Yes - forgetting for now about the third obligation sense - that's what I meant to say. Correspondingly, I imagine you could normally substitute be able to (in whichever of its bewildering array of forms might happen to suit any particular context) in the infinitive construction. – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '13 at 02:13
  • Yeah, though only in the 'be permitted/allowed to' deontic sense of be able to; not in the 'be capable of' sense. – John Lawler Jan 09 '13 at 17:07
  • @John: I think I understand the distinction you're making, and inarguably you know more about such things than me. But there's a degree of "semantic overlap" here to confuse the issue. And regardless of what anyone else thinks, each individual speaker uses words in whatever way seems "reasonable" to them. Take I tried resting but got out of breath pretty fast when I finally got to run again. Who's to say if he meant "when I was allowed", or "when I was capable" of running again? – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '13 at 22:41
  • 1
    It means it's not up to his free choice and abilities, but to some outside agency, either official or neuromuscular. That's the deontic sense. Epistemic senses are strictly internal/mental/logical. – John Lawler Jan 09 '13 at 22:46
  • @John: oic. I must make a point of getting more familiar with that deontic/epistemic distinction. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that this is an area where ordinary language usage embodies more information (wisdom?) than we (or at least *I*) normally register consciously. – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '13 at 23:26