gonna London

As far as I know, "be gonna" only occurs in structures such as:

I'm going to marry him whatever they say!

And not in structures such as:

I'm going to London to see her.

A native speaker tells me that it does occur in such as the second example. Does it, and if it does, why? And is it widespread?

I think it could occur in the second example, but it's much more informal (or careless). Certainly in the first example, gonna is what you'd normally hear in less-than-formal speech, but I think you'd often hear "going to" in the second example.

<<I think it could occur in the second example, but it's much more informal (or careless). Certainly in the first example, gonna is what you'd normally hear in less-than-formal speech, but I think you'd often hear "going to" in the second example.>>

That's actually inaccurate. You would NEVER hear "gonna" in the second example. It's just incorrect. I must not write long enough sentences for people to think I'm the real Travis.

The Travis above is not the real Travis, I must say.

That said, I have never heard of "be gonna" being used with "go" as the main verb in such a construction by itself. I would not say that it is "incorrect" in a dialect in which such is found natively, though, even though I would still expect most English-speakers to perceive such as at least rather off.

I have never heard someone say "I'm gonna London" as opposed to "I'm going to London."

The use of "gonna" is purely a sloppy slang expression for "going to" in the sense of a performing an action, and it's so easy to slip into that mode of speech in an informal way. It's an Americanism I reckon, and which is widely used over here as well, but only when saying something like "I'm gonna tell him the truth".

"Gonna" in the sense of going to a place - "I'm gonna London" just doesn't work - I doesn't make sense.

During WW2 when Britain had to endure a total and complete blackout of all external lights during the hours of darkness, there was a popular song that went:

I'm gonna get lit up when the lights go up in London,
I'm gonna get lit as I've never been before.
You will find me on the tiles,
You will find me wreathed in smiles,
I'm gonna get so lit up
I'll be visible for miles.

The guy who wrote that lyric and composed the music (Hubert Gregg), did so in 1940 during the height of the bombing blitz on London, but it was not accepted by the BBC of the time, and was not broadcast by them, simply because it was not grammatically correct! It was not until 1943 (by which time the Americans were over here (and over paid and over sexed!) in huge numbers that the lyric became accepted for the first time by the British media, and the song only then became well known and very popular.

Perhaps that was the beginning of the end of the "ruination" of the English Language in Britain - under the influence of the "friendly invading" Yanks...... :-) It wasn't only candy and nylons that the "Yanks" (as they were invariably called over here, apparently, no matter where in America they came from) brought over here to war torn and blitz ravaged Britain.

I wouldn't say "I'm gonna London", but I might say "I'm goin'a London". The pronunciation is close, but not the same. This construction rarely occurs in even the most colloquial writing, though I still use it sometimes in IMs and such... perhaps it's an idiosyncracy of mine. But I don't think it's so unusual in speech.

- Kef

>>The use of "gonna" is purely a sloppy slang expression for "going to" in the sense of a performing an action, and it's so easy to slip into that mode of speech in an informal way. It's an Americanism I reckon, and which is widely used over here as well, but only when saying something like "I'm gonna tell him the truth".<<

Such is not mere "sloppy slang" but rather how North American English is normally spoken on an everyday basis...

I don't imagine there's a language on Earth that isn't spoken "sloppily" in some way or other.

"I don't imagine there's a language on Earth that isn't spoken 'sloppily' in some way or other."

Yep. Judgments like "sloppily" or "lazy" are purely subjective.

Indeed, words like "gonna" are actually rather linguistically sophisticated as they combine a number of grammatical functions.

I note that it is often the case that the usages of so-called "substandard" English are more complex grammatically than those of so-called "Standard English."

Gonna is just as acceptable now as other contractions (I'm, won't) were 50 years ago...Contractions were not allowed in writing at all (unless a dialog was quoted)...Nowadays they are accepted everywhere except the most formal writing...The same will happen to gonna, wanna, oughta, gotta in 30-50 years' time. Gonna (wanna, oughta, gotta) are informal but are not stigmatized like ain't (or y'all) so they are soon to be accepted (just like won't or isn't)

One thing that should be remembered, though, is that there are significant grammatical differences between what can be called "classical English", which is the basis of formal written English, and spoken and informal written English. The thing is that the system of quasimodals is far more developed in modern spoken English than in classical English, and things like "gonna", "wanna", "oughtta", and "gotta" are part of the quasimodal system of modern English dialects. They would seem out of place in formal written English not just due to being informal contractions, but because formal written English conserves an older modal system which is on the wane in modern spoken English, which has come to often favor such quasimodal constructions in its place.

<<Indeed, words like "gonna" are actually rather linguistically sophisticated as they combine a number of grammatical functions. >>


I agree. In fact, most good linguists will tell you that the use of "gonna" shows even more that grammaticalization of "be going to" (aux.) is happening. Speakers of English change the language, not Keepers. We don't want keepers. Let the French and Spanish have them all.

"Speakers of English change the language, not Keepers. We don't want keepers. Let the French and Spanish have them all."

As a French speaker, I can assure you that my language is no less dynamic than English. Don't be fooled by appearances - the Académie is more often ignored than revered.

The fact that English speakers say "I'm gonna do it tomorrow" but generally not "I'm gonna London" actually demonstrates how sophisticated "substandard" English is.

The composite word "gonna" seems to always demand an infinitive.

>>The composite word "gonna" seems to always demand an infinitive.<<

Yes, but the interesting part here is that said infinitive can be another quasimodal, as quasimodals have infinitive forms unlike classical modals. This allows the chaining of quasimodals, as in:

"I'm gonna hafta go over to my house".