"in" versus "to" in "He went running {in / to} the park."

Question

Do you agree that:

1. He went running to the park.
2. He went to the park running.

mean the same thing - "He got to the park by running."

Now, if I want to say: He went to the park to have a run. I need to say

3. He went running in the park.

But I am confused about "He went running in the park". Native speakers say it means "He went to the park to have a run."

But in means inside not in the direction of, hence, (3) should mean "He started to run in the park" and not "he went to the park to have a run". Or maybe (3) has two meanings?

"to the park" = in the direction of the park
"in the park" = inside the park

So, how come (3) He went running in the park can mean "He went to the park to have a run"?

Answer 1

• He went running in the park. [The activity he performed]

• Running in the park is fun. [Gerund noun]

• He went to the park running.

is like:

• He went to the park walking. [on foot].

The sentences are not the same. The second explains his means of locomotion.

• He went running to the park.
• He went walking to the park.

Those two are the same as the previous two and different from the first two.

However, there is no in the park/ to the park opposition.

to indicates an endpoint here. whereas: in the park is like at school, in the building etc. it is a prepositional phrase. Not a phrasal verb.

Answer 2

First, you should cut down on the unnecessary stuff to get down to the exact problem you're having here, if you want to figure this out more easily.

For instance, "He went running in the park." can be cut down to "He went running." (all prepositional phrases are unnecessary, and can be removed for a grammatically correct sentence by definition). "To" is often used as an infinitive with a verb, but "to the park" is a prepositional phrase, so the other sentence can be reduced to "He went to have a run." The other "to have" phrase is indeed an infinitive.

There isn't any difference in the meaning of these two sentences. The second one sounds like passive voice, although it technically isn't, as far as I'm aware. They functionally mean the same thing, but the second one ("to have a run") isn't as common. It may be more common in British English, where "have a(n) (verb used as noun)" is more colloquial, but I'm rather talking out of my rear end at this point.

I can't really explain "why" to you. That would be like asking "Why does the word 'apple' refer to a sweet, red fruit?" It would be a question of the origin of grammar rather than plain etymology, though.

Answer 3

Yes.

“He went running in the park”

Means he went to the park in order to exercise by running.

One could say also

“He went running at the park,”

which means the same thing.

If we break the sentence down,

“He went running,” - tells us what he did;

“in the park,” - tells us where he did it.