Random Thread

[zompist]

If "gonna" were used to mean anything other than "going to", "going to" were contracted into anything other than "gonna", there were also sentences that accepted "gonna" but not "going to", etc., then I would have an easier time separating the two.

I don't get these quibbles. We have two separate meanings: "gonna" is essentially a future tense, "go" is a movement verb. Insisting on the etymological meaning, based on accidents of the writing system, is just an error. What do you think linguists do when etymology is not available, as with unwritten languages?

English is mild with this sort of thing, wait till you get to the French verbal complex. If you look at it synchronically, without getting misled by the orthography, it looks a lot like the Swahili verbal system.

Then again, since English relies very heavily on syntax, maybe developments in syntax would be the most significant for English?

If you're thinking about Future English or something, recall that words turn into clitics, clitics turn into affixes. Today's syntax is next millennium's morphology.

(Here's an example of differential contraction. "You can, can't you?" can no longer be stated "You can, cannot you?" On the other hand, when you stress a modal, "not" must receive the stress if it's present, and "n't" must not: "I should not drink more coffee" / "I shouldn't drink more coffee.")

The uncontracted sentence isn't, "You can, cannot you?" It's, "You can, can you not?"

Contractions don't work that way in English. "It really is" doesn't contract to "It's really".

The example shows that the contraction "can't" has slightly different syntax than the uncontracted form "cannot"-- which is unusual in English.

It's quite valid to ask why "gonna" works differently. More of a case has to be made, sure. I've already suggested that you'd have to look at all the Aux+P combinations Travis listed. The fact that "gonna" has a specific meaning is also relevant; nothing like that is happening with "can't".

[rotting bones]

Thanks. Maybe I don't know enough to judge.

[bradrn]

The biggest morphological difference between written English and a majority of spoken dialects is that very many English dialects have innovated new modal and quasimodal forms by combining to and have (in addition to not) with stems along with reduction and in some cases other stem changes to create new forms (and this is not mere phonology, as shown by how gonna and going to are not interchangeable in all places in spoken English).

Thanks. Do you know of grammatical writeups that explain things like which sentences change meaning if you replace "gonna" with "going to"?

I think none. It’s the other way round: going to in the literal sense of going somewhere cannot be replaced by gonna.

How current are forms like "gonna" in British English?

Completely current, as far as I’m aware.

[rotting bones]

The biggest morphological difference between written English and a majority of spoken dialects is that very many English dialects have innovated new modal and quasimodal forms by combining to and have (in addition to not) with stems along with reduction and in some cases other stem changes to create new forms (and this is not mere phonology, as shown by how gonna and going to are not interchangeable in all places in spoken English).

Thanks. Do you know of grammatical writeups that explain things like which sentences change meaning if you replace "gonna" with "going to"?

I think none. It’s the other way round: going to in the literal sense of going somewhere cannot be replaced by gonna.

How current are forms like "gonna" in British English?

Completely current, as far as I’m aware.

Thanks.

[Travis B.]

? "I've not decided yet." => Again, never said by most people. Sounds very old fashioned, and maybe British?

Actually, this one seems okay in speech to me, in free variation with "I haven't decided yet."

[Travis B.]

One syntactic change in spoken English vis-à-vis literary English I have noticed is that the traditional way of negating to-infinitives was to put not before the to, but in the current spoken English I am familiar with not comes after the to outside of specifically formal language, and furthermore forms like hafta, sposta, gonna, gotta, and wanna cannot be broken up by not ─ not must come after them no matter what.

[Travis B.]

If "gonna" were used to mean anything other than "going to", "going to" were contracted into anything other than "gonna", there were also sentences that accepted "gonna" but not "going to", etc., then I would have an easier time separating the two.

I don't get these quibbles. We have two separate meanings: "gonna" is essentially a future tense, "go" is a movement verb. Insisting on the etymological meaning, based on accidents of the writing system, is just an error. What do you think linguists do when etymology is not available, as with unwritten languages?

If we are to quibble, I should note that properly gonna is a prospective aspect, as it can be used for things like to construct a future-in-the-past that cannot be done with, say, will.

[rotting bones]

If we are to quibble, I should note that properly gonna is a prospective aspect, as it can be used for things like to construct a future-in-the-past that cannot be done with, say, will.

Doesn't English normally use "would" for the prospective aspect? E.g. "He said he'd arrive soon."

Maybe "I would scream." doesn't sound urgent enough?

Also, is this a different use of "gonna"?

"The hobbits are gonna go to Isengard."

To me, the only thing "gonna" adds to this sentence is a sense of urgency. Maybe adding urgency is the main use of "gonna".

[rotting bones]

The issue is that "gonna" must be in front of a verb. That is to say, only "going to <verb>" can be contracted to "gonna <verb>". "Going to <noun>" can't be contracted to "gonna <noun>".

I could be wrong, but describing this as a purely morphological change seems to me to be leaving out the syntactic element of the change. To me, the syntax of allowing contractions at certain locations in the sentence looks like the primary development. I'm not even sure I'd describe the contraction as a morphological change if I encountered it in the wild; at least not without more divergence in the use of "going to" vs. "gonna".

[Travis B.]

If we are to quibble, I should note that properly gonna is a prospective aspect, as it can be used for things like to construct a future-in-the-past that cannot be done with, say, will.

Doesn't English normally use "would" for the prospective aspect? E.g. "He said he'd arrive soon."

Maybe "I would scream." doesn't sound urgent enough?

Also, is this a different use of "gonna"?

"The hobbits are gonna go to Isengard."

To me, the only thing "gonna" adds to this sentence is a sense of urgency. Maybe adding urgency is the main use of "gonna".

Would here is the "past" subjunctive of will.

As for "The hobbits are gonna go to Isengard" that is an example of prospective aspect in the present tense, as it is present tense but indicates that the future appears as if the hobbits will go to Isengard.

Note that one can say "The hobbits were gonna go to Isengard", which is an example of the use of the prospective aspect in the past tense, indicating that at some point in the past the hobbits were planning on going to Isengard (while implying that they did not in reality).

[Travis B.]

The issue is that "gonna" must be in front of a verb. That is to say, only "going to <verb>" can be contracted to "gonna <verb>". "Going to <noun>" can't be contracted to "gonna <noun>".

I could be wrong, but describing this as a purely morphological change seems to me to be leaving out the syntactic element of the change. To me, the syntax of allowing contractions at certain locations in the sentence looks like the primary development. I'm not even sure I'd describe the contraction as a morphological change if I encountered it in the wild; at least not without more divergence in the use of "going to" vs. "gonna".

The thing is that phonology does not know about syntax outside of phenomena that can be explained through things such as stress.

In the case of "going to <verb>" or "gonna <verb>" versus "going to <noun>" at least in the dialect here there is no inherent stress difference, as "gonna" in "gonna <verb>" can be fully stressed (but is not always, as in the case of "I'm'onna").

[rotting bones]

Would here is the "past" subjunctive of will.

As for "The hobbits are gonna go to Isengard" that is an example of prospective aspect in the present tense, as it is present tense but indicates that the future appears as if the hobbits will go to Isengard.

Note that one can say "The hobbits were gonna go to Isengard", which is an example of the use of the prospective aspect in the past tense, indicating that at some point in the past the hobbits were planning on going to Isengard (while implying that they did not in reality).

Depending on the context, "I would scream." can imply that the scream will happen subsequent to certain events like with "gonna". E.g. "After you grab me, I would scream." has the same meaning as "After you grab me, I'm gonna scream."

The Wikipedia article describes the prospective aspect as "an event that occurs subsequent to a given reference time". It also uses "would" in its example sentences, although its examples spell out the references explicitly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_aspect

I'd say the specific sentence "I would scream." sounds strange because "scream" is an extreme action, and "would" often implies a hypothetical. English doesn't have enough grammar to distinguish between these uses explicitly.

Then again, you are the native speaker.

[rotting bones]

The thing is that phonology does not know about syntax outside of phenomena that can be explained through things such as stress.

In the case of "going to <verb>" or "gonna <verb>" versus "going to <noun>" at least in the dialect here there is no inherent stress difference, as "gonna" in "gonna <verb>" can be fully stressed (but is not always, as in the case of "I'm'onna").

I'm not saying "gonna" is a purely phonological change. I'm saying it's primarily a syntactic change with a phonological component. It could also have a morphological component; I'm not sure.

[bradrn]

The thing is that phonology does not know about syntax outside of phenomena that can be explained through things such as stress.

In the case of "going to <verb>" or "gonna <verb>" versus "going to <noun>" at least in the dialect here there is no inherent stress difference, as "gonna" in "gonna <verb>" can be fully stressed (but is not always, as in the case of "I'm'onna").

I'm not saying "gonna" is a purely phonological change. I'm saying it's primarily a syntactic change with a phonological component. It could also have a morphological component; I'm not sure.

There is no firm distinction between syntax and morphology, in general. Phonetic reduction going along with morphosyntactic change and semantic bleaching is basically the definition of grammaticalisation.

[Travis B.]

Would here is the "past" subjunctive of will.

As for "The hobbits are gonna go to Isengard" that is an example of prospective aspect in the present tense, as it is present tense but indicates that the future appears as if the hobbits will go to Isengard.

Note that one can say "The hobbits were gonna go to Isengard", which is an example of the use of the prospective aspect in the past tense, indicating that at some point in the past the hobbits were planning on going to Isengard (while implying that they did not in reality).

Depending on the context, "I would scream." can imply that the scream will happen subsequent to certain events like with "gonna". E.g. "After you grab me, I would scream." has the same meaning as "After you grab me, I'm gonna scream."

The Wikipedia article describes the prospective aspect as "an event that occurs subsequent to a given reference time". It also uses "would" in its example sentences, although its examples spell out the references explicitly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_aspect

I'd say the specific sentence "I would scream." sounds strange because "scream" is an extreme action, and "would" often implies a hypothetical. English doesn't have enough grammar to distinguish between these uses explicitly.

Then again, you are the native speaker.

I don't interpret "I would scream" the same way as I interpret "I'm gonna scream"; the former emphasizes subjunctive-ness whereas the latter emphasizes prospective aspect. "After you grab me, I would scream" implies that one's screaming is dependent on being grabbed and may not happen (e.g. if one is not grabbed), whereas "After you grab me, I'm gonna scream" implies that one will be grabbed and one will scream as a result.

[rotting bones]

The thing is that phonology does not know about syntax outside of phenomena that can be explained through things such as stress.

In the case of "going to <verb>" or "gonna <verb>" versus "going to <noun>" at least in the dialect here there is no inherent stress difference, as "gonna" in "gonna <verb>" can be fully stressed (but is not always, as in the case of "I'm'onna").

I'm not saying "gonna" is a purely phonological change. I'm saying it's primarily a syntactic change with a phonological component. It could also have a morphological component; I'm not sure.

There is no firm distinction between syntax and morphology, in general. Phonetic reduction going along with morphosyntactic change and semantic bleaching is basically the definition of grammaticalisation.

Thanks. I was honestly unsure if the use of contractions at specific locations counts as a morphological development since the meanings are so similar.

[rotting bones]

Would here is the "past" subjunctive of will.

As for "The hobbits are gonna go to Isengard" that is an example of prospective aspect in the present tense, as it is present tense but indicates that the future appears as if the hobbits will go to Isengard.

Note that one can say "The hobbits were gonna go to Isengard", which is an example of the use of the prospective aspect in the past tense, indicating that at some point in the past the hobbits were planning on going to Isengard (while implying that they did not in reality).

Depending on the context, "I would scream." can imply that the scream will happen subsequent to certain events like with "gonna". E.g. "After you grab me, I would scream." has the same meaning as "After you grab me, I'm gonna scream."

The Wikipedia article describes the prospective aspect as "an event that occurs subsequent to a given reference time". It also uses "would" in its example sentences, although its examples spell out the references explicitly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_aspect

I'd say the specific sentence "I would scream." sounds strange because "scream" is an extreme action, and "would" often implies a hypothetical. English doesn't have enough grammar to distinguish between these uses explicitly.

Then again, you are the native speaker.

I don't interpret "I would scream" the same way as I interpret "I'm gonna scream"; the former emphasizes subjunctive-ness whereas the latter emphasizes prospective aspect. "After you grab me, I would scream" implies that one's screaming is dependent on being grabbed and may not happen (e.g. if one is not grabbed), whereas "After you grab me, I'm gonna scream" implies that one will be grabbed and one will scream as a result.

Thanks.

[bradrn]

Would here is the "past" subjunctive of will.

As for "The hobbits are gonna go to Isengard" that is an example of prospective aspect in the present tense, as it is present tense but indicates that the future appears as if the hobbits will go to Isengard.

Note that one can say "The hobbits were gonna go to Isengard", which is an example of the use of the prospective aspect in the past tense, indicating that at some point in the past the hobbits were planning on going to Isengard (while implying that they did not in reality).

Depending on the context, "I would scream." can imply that the scream will happen subsequent to certain events like with "gonna". E.g. "After you grab me, I would scream." has the same meaning as "After you grab me, I'm gonna scream."

The Wikipedia article describes the prospective aspect as "an event that occurs subsequent to a given reference time". It also uses "would" in its example sentences, although its examples spell out the references explicitly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_aspect

I'd say the specific sentence "I would scream." sounds strange because "scream" is an extreme action, and "would" often implies a hypothetical. English doesn't have enough grammar to distinguish between these uses explicitly.

Then again, you are the native speaker.

I don't interpret "I would scream" the same way as I interpret "I'm gonna scream"; the former emphasizes subjunctive-ness whereas the latter emphasizes prospective aspect. "After you grab me, I would scream" implies that one's screaming is dependent on being grabbed and may not happen (e.g. if one is not grabbed), whereas "After you grab me, I'm gonna scream" implies that one will be grabbed and one will scream as a result.

I’m not sure whether ‘After you grab me, I would scream’ is grammatical for me. It feels more natural to put the first clause in the past tense: ‘After you grabbed me, I would scream’.

[rotting bones]

I’m not sure whether ‘After you grab me, I would scream’ is grammatical for me. It feels more natural to put the first clause in the past tense: ‘After you grabbed me, I would scream’.

If you go by Wikipedia's examples, "After you grab me, I will scream." is also the prospective aspect.

[bradrn]

I’m not sure whether ‘After you grab me, I would scream’ is grammatical for me. It feels more natural to put the first clause in the past tense: ‘After you grabbed me, I would scream’.

If you go by Wikipedia's examples, "After you grab me, I will scream." is also the prospective aspect.

If you go by Wikipedia you’ll end up being very confused about aspect. Wikipedia’s linguistic articles are terrible, and those on aspect are among the worst.