schwhatever wrote:There's also some local weirdness with the future tense: "I'm going to go eat" is on the verge of replacing "I'm going to eat" which has started to hold a more anticipatory meaning (I'm going to eat, now), while the former has implications of being a more distant future decision (I'm going to go eat later).
Not impossible, but it seems likely to me you might have the more general English use of the second "go", to mark scenal deixis, and be mistaking implicit-"here" for implicit-"now". It's really another item on the Conlangers' List Of "Oh wow I thought this was something exotic, but English does it too!", but English does grammaticalize what scene something happens in, relative to the presently-activated one. Adding an extra pre-verbal "go" just marks that the action happens in some other scene, setting, or location than the speaker is presently speaking about. Consider "let's eat", which you might say if the food were already present, versus "let's go eat", which means you have to move somewhere else to do it. Even if it's just from the living room to the kitchen, this can be a socially significant change of setting. This logic applies in most tenses: I'm going to eat / go eat, I will eat / go eat, I'm running / going running. In the latter case we often get lazy and call it a future marker (even linguists do this), but it isn't: it's marking that locomotion is required to get from 'here' to the intended scene of action. The future-ness is only a logical consequence of that.
It gets sorta weird in the past tense (ran / went running, ate / ??went eating) and I'm not up to analyzing that at the moment. But for presents/futures, consider whether this might be what really is going on when you use preverbal "go".