It occurs to me when I want to say I am gonna go out to some place. Can I say I'm gonna go away to some place? Do these two phrasal verbs make the same meaning?

  • Perhaps you should use I'm going to go out and not gonna, which is the written imitation of how people say it. – Lambie Aug 3 '18 at 15:50

They're not interchangeable.

To go out implies somewhere relatively close, that you're going to return from sooner rather than later.
You can go out to work, out to a bar, restaurant or club.

You would more likely go away to a further destination.
You could go away to Paris, London or Rome - even if just for the day, you wouldn't say 'go out to Rome'... though once you went to Rome, you could go out for the night.

You could go away to work - but that in itself would imply you were going to Paris, London or Rome in order to do that.

From comments...
If 'going out' implies a brief excursion rather than a distant stay, then perhaps it's partly psychological rather than purely geographical.

< sarcasm >
If in the latter days of the British Empire/Raj you could consider 'going out' to India - of course you'd be back after several G&Ts & have some tales to tell of how it was always so damn hot, Caruthers - then these days you could equally consider 'going out' to Portugal for the 'season', or to wherever they have the good stuff for skiing in the winter, with après ski by the pint ... like some modern-day debutante.
Papa, of course, will pick up the bill...

| improve this answer | |
  • To the extent that go out/away somewhere can have different meanings and / or contexts where they're idiomatically appropriate, I don't think "proximity" is a factor. There's nothing unusual about, for example, I think I'll go out to Portugal next summer. – FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica Aug 3 '18 at 14:46
  • 1
    Yes, it is peculiarly British to say: We're going out to Kenya next summer. Or: When did you come out to Brazil or India? I can't help but think that it's related to England's colonial/colonizing past. (I know, they did not colonize Brazil but the Brits there would still use it.) You don't hear that usage in AmE. – Lambie Aug 3 '18 at 15:53
  • I'd never actually thought of it that way, but yes, if you consider the world to be your oyster [or the mollusc of you choice] then you could go out to India... though you may still have to go away to Venus ;-) Perhaps it's a psychological distance, rather than physical? I still think 'distance' [of some sort] is a factor. – gone fishin' again. Aug 3 '18 at 16:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.