be going to

Cześć,
jaka jest różnica między tymi zdaniami?

I am going to be traveling.
I am going to travel.

pierwsze odnosi sie np. do okreslonego punktu w czasie
This time tomorrow I'm going to be travelling

I am going to be traveling a lot.
I am going to travel a lot.

No simultaneity with any specific time point whatsoever is either entailed or implied in either of them.

Your point is neither logical nor rational, Mr Brainski. It doesn't make sense either.

Telicity matters, Janski.

(A)telicity has nothing to do with it.
You talk nonsense. (Compare with "You are talking nonsense")

You will never learn those simple things. Actually, you are getting close to zielonosiwy, which should sort of make you wonder.

Weź ty nie obrażaj ludzi. :-) MG sobie na to nie zasłużył.

(1) I am going to be traveling (a lot). (Atelic)
(2) I am going to travel (a lot). (Atelic)

Freed from the scope of "be going to", the complements in isolation:
in (1): progressive infinitive "be + traveling" : atelic
in (2): simple infinitive "travel": atelic

For comparison:
You talk nonsense. (atelic)
You are talking nonsense. (atelic)

So what's the difference?

czesto jest tak, ze w jezyku zachodza pewne zmiany czy zachowania zaczerpniete czy tez znajdujace swoje zrodlo u podstaw innych, podobnych zachowan
I am going to be doing sth - mowa o czyms, co sie stanie tak czy siak; neutralne podejscie do mowienia o przyszlosci, wynkiajace z formy/zamiennika I will be doing sth
I am going to do sth - mowa o czyms zamierzonym; nie ma mowy o zamienniku I will do sth, gdyz ta forma bedzie wyrazala zamiar podjety w chwili mowienia o nim, badz czysta dywagacja/przewidywanie o przyszlosci

Yes, it was not about telicity. What I meant was that I'm going to be travelling may be interpreted as 'action in progress at a given time', but I'm going to be travelling a lot does not allow of this interpretation. Janski gave examples with 'a lot' added and the two present infinitives and then said that simultaneity was out of the question there, but that was a foregone conclusion.
Sorry about the terminological confusion anyway.

szczerze to az nie chcialo mi sie wierzyc, co tutaj termin (a)telic robilo - ten temat raczej nie wymagal az tak wnikliwej analizy, ale przypuszczam, ze dales sie wciagnac w 'Janskiego'

uzywam rozroznienia telic/atelic na zajęciach
tym razem chodzilo raczej o boundedness

rozumiem, jednak wyklady profesjonalne a to forum to niebo/ziemia
Janski moze mowi jak wykladowca, moze i ma papiery na to, ale czy tak trudno odnalezc odpowiedz na to, czy on chce pomoc czy tylko zaszkodzic Tobie i podobnym, a tym samym zyskujac sobie slawe 'delikwenta' angielskiej gramatyki

Janki czasem napisze cos do rzeczy.

Agreed.
Mind you, reading through what Janski says you may come to the conclusion that he comes across as being more of a show-off, an attention-seeker, an impostor, or even a genius in a way rather than a rogue man; he seems to be a skillful wordsmith and more than capable of making other people respond to his words - who I am rather in awe of, to be honest, as that behaviour reminds me of that of my greatest idol's, whom I cherish deep within my heart - but that doesn't necessarily mean that you need to get involved in his little word skirmishes.
What the world would've looked like without people like him anyway, eh?

Peterson?

way off

It sure quacks like a duck but is it a duck ...?


On się tutaj przychodzi intelektualnie onanizować.

pewnie ma malo publikacji itp., co mnie jednak dziwi
szkoda, ze nie dobiera slow do poziomu ucznia. czasem dobiera, ale zwykle woli pisac bardzo oficjalnie

Może podeślij mu namiary na tę konferencję naukową w Bułgarii ("wszystkie dziedziny wiedzy"). Tam na pewno bardzo chętnie poczytają jego mumbo jumbo za drobną "fee".



tak, kiedy nazywa innych 'know-nothing'.

(1) I am going to be traveling. (atelic and unbounded)
(2) I am going to travel. (atelic and unbounded)

You talk nonsense. (atelic and unbounded)
You are talking nonsense. (atelic and unbounded)

Back to square one:
What's the difference between (1) and (2)? Neither (a)telicity nor (un)boundedness has anything to do with it.

No, it was not about (a)telicity.


No, it is not about "terminological confusion." It is not about (un)boundedness either.

>>>It sure quacks like a duck but is it a duck ...?
A bit off topic, ale
Przypomina mi to Judge Judy, ....if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..it is not an elephant...

Please comment on your own examples where you added 'a lot' to the original sentences.

I didn't add anything new to the original alternative. I barely dismissed your pretense of answering the original question, which stands unaltered: "I am going to travel vs. I am going to be traveling."

I already commented twice:
(i)"No, it is not about (a)telicity…" and (ii) "No, it is not about "terminological confusion." It is not about (un)boundedness either."

There is yet another related terminological confusion opportunity that you might be tempted to take advantage of, viz. (im)perfectivity, but I wouldn't go there if I were you. Instead, try epistemic modality, necessary vs. possible.

The original wording allows of an action-in-progress interpretation of the continuous infinitive.
The wording with 'a lot' does not.

merely, nie barely, Panie Janski

No.
Ewevee (what kind of human being would name himself after one of those restroom sounds that trigger natural physiological reactions?) put together two intentionally terse sentences, each of them capable of standing on its own when said out of the blue. What you did is you tried to answer a question never asked.

So let me recap: I say no, sir. You do not know anything about those (a)telic, (un)bounded little and meaningless things. But that is unimportant. What's much worse is you know zilch about the semantic roles grammatical aspect can willingly nor unwillingly serve.

Barely, you idiot. BARELY. There is much more to say about that than your pity peanut-size brain can possibly comprehend.

The answer to this question is not one of those one-sentence replies, but it's known in the opinion of many brainy people (Abraham, Boye, and others).
If you still care to talk about it, repost your question.