Hey, while you're all talking about "wanna", could you please tell me what constrains its use?
constraints on wanna
"Wanna" (a contracted form of "want to") is a quasimodal form, and consequently cannot be used as a main verb as such but rather always takes a main verb or possibly another quasimodal form. The latter is an important difference from modal verbs, as one can say things like "I don't wanna hafta eat the pickled herring", while Standard English does not allow multiple modals (but some English dialects do).
Actually "wanna" can have two meanings:
1. I don't wanna eat that potato ("want to").
2. I don't wanna* potato ("want a").
Another example of the complexity of so-called "substandard" English!
In terms of its most common usage (as a contraction for "want to"), like "gonna" (discussed elsewhere), the principal constraint is that it must precede (or imply) an infinitive.
* Though some would write it "wan' a" in this instance. And indeed, both phrases could be further truncated:
1. I don' wanna eat that potato ("want to").
2. I don' wanna* potato ("want a").
1. I don't wanna eat that potato ("want to").
2. I don't wanna* potato ("want a").
Another example of the complexity of so-called "substandard" English!
In terms of its most common usage (as a contraction for "want to"), like "gonna" (discussed elsewhere), the principal constraint is that it must precede (or imply) an infinitive.
* Though some would write it "wan' a" in this instance. And indeed, both phrases could be further truncated:
1. I don' wanna eat that potato ("want to").
2. I don' wanna* potato ("want a").
It strikes me as unnatural when the written forms "wanna" and "gotta" are used for "want a" and "got a", as in:
"I wanna potato."
or
"You gotta problem?"
In cases like these, /wQn@/ and /gQt@/ would be the normal, predictable pronunciations, and the innovative written forms convey no useful information. In the case of "want to" and "got to", the pronunciations /wQn@/ and /gQt@/ are not predictable from regular allophony, so it makes sense to spell them differently. But there's no more reason to write "I wanna potato" than to write "I amma person"; it really does strike me as dissonant to see it written that way.
"I wanna potato."
or
"You gotta problem?"
In cases like these, /wQn@/ and /gQt@/ would be the normal, predictable pronunciations, and the innovative written forms convey no useful information. In the case of "want to" and "got to", the pronunciations /wQn@/ and /gQt@/ are not predictable from regular allophony, so it makes sense to spell them differently. But there's no more reason to write "I wanna potato" than to write "I amma person"; it really does strike me as dissonant to see it written that way.
I have to say that I agree completely; it just seems *wrong* to use "wanna" and "gotta" for "want a" and "got a" to me, to say the very least...
Well what do y'all think about "gimme" (give me)?
and "lemme" (let me)
They're not very different from "wanna" (want a) and "gotta" (got a)
and "lemme" (let me)
They're not very different from "wanna" (want a) and "gotta" (got a)
These go to point that gonna and wanna are not real words nor serious modals...they are representations of sloppy speech and indicate nothing more than how people are actually failing to enunciate properly
>>Well what do y'all think about "gimme" (give me)?
and "lemme" (let me)
They're not very different from "wanna" (want a) and "gotta" (got a)<<
Actually, they are different from "wanna" and "gotta". "Gimme", for instance, displays predictable assimilation across word boundaries, which shows up in other places but is just not normally written down outside of that case. Likewise, "lemme" displays allophonic elision of unstressed /t/ codas which just happens to be very common in the case of "lemme" due to such being generally rather unstressed.
These are very different from "wanna" and "gotta", which are simply not predictable in nature and which act as fixed lexical units in modern spoken English. Consequently, I would be against their being used in even informal writing, as there is no added value in their being written - unlike writing "wanna" and "gotta", where one is effectively writing new lexical items which are used extremely commonly in speech today, and to not write such would not be faithful to that being represented.
and "lemme" (let me)
They're not very different from "wanna" (want a) and "gotta" (got a)<<
Actually, they are different from "wanna" and "gotta". "Gimme", for instance, displays predictable assimilation across word boundaries, which shows up in other places but is just not normally written down outside of that case. Likewise, "lemme" displays allophonic elision of unstressed /t/ codas which just happens to be very common in the case of "lemme" due to such being generally rather unstressed.
These are very different from "wanna" and "gotta", which are simply not predictable in nature and which act as fixed lexical units in modern spoken English. Consequently, I would be against their being used in even informal writing, as there is no added value in their being written - unlike writing "wanna" and "gotta", where one is effectively writing new lexical items which are used extremely commonly in speech today, and to not write such would not be faithful to that being represented.
>>and "sorta" and "kinda"
coulda
shoulda
woulda...<<
These are some more interesting cases than "gimme" and "lemme", which are mere attempts to write "phonetically". In the case of "sorta" and "kinda", these clearly act as independent words in spoken English today except when used literally. The matter is that in very many usages of "sorta" and "kinda", these really cannot be analyzed as "sort of" and "kind of" syntactically, and these have a purely adverbial function or may even act as discourse particles. They are only still underlyingly the noun-preposition sequences "sort of" and "kind of" and not independent words in more literal usages, in which they are directly equivalent to "type of" in meaning and usage.
As for "coulda", "shoulda", and "woulda", these are not fixed words, but rather sequences of "could", "should", and "would" and a reduced clitic derived from "have". The reason why such is a clitic and not an inflection is because when these are fronted to initial position, "could", "should", and "would" are detached from the following clitic, which may be promoted to the free version of "have" in the process.
One note I should make about things like "couldna", "shouldna", and "wouldna" (formally "couldn't've", "shouldn't've", and "wouldn't've") is that the "n"/"n't" that is customarily written is actually an inflection and not a clitic, despite how people commonly call such a "contraction". This is shown by how such will move with "could", "should", and "would" if such are fronted, unlike "a"/"'ve", which is left behind. Furthemore, while such does not generally involve a stem change in this case, it does cause a stem change in "do" and "will", indicative of its underlying status as an inflection and not a clitic.
coulda
shoulda
woulda...<<
These are some more interesting cases than "gimme" and "lemme", which are mere attempts to write "phonetically". In the case of "sorta" and "kinda", these clearly act as independent words in spoken English today except when used literally. The matter is that in very many usages of "sorta" and "kinda", these really cannot be analyzed as "sort of" and "kind of" syntactically, and these have a purely adverbial function or may even act as discourse particles. They are only still underlyingly the noun-preposition sequences "sort of" and "kind of" and not independent words in more literal usages, in which they are directly equivalent to "type of" in meaning and usage.
As for "coulda", "shoulda", and "woulda", these are not fixed words, but rather sequences of "could", "should", and "would" and a reduced clitic derived from "have". The reason why such is a clitic and not an inflection is because when these are fronted to initial position, "could", "should", and "would" are detached from the following clitic, which may be promoted to the free version of "have" in the process.
One note I should make about things like "couldna", "shouldna", and "wouldna" (formally "couldn't've", "shouldn't've", and "wouldn't've") is that the "n"/"n't" that is customarily written is actually an inflection and not a clitic, despite how people commonly call such a "contraction". This is shown by how such will move with "could", "should", and "would" if such are fronted, unlike "a"/"'ve", which is left behind. Furthemore, while such does not generally involve a stem change in this case, it does cause a stem change in "do" and "will", indicative of its underlying status as an inflection and not a clitic.
<Another example of the complexity of so-called "substandard" English! >
Never seen anyone call those substandard before. Did you mean non-standard?
Never seen anyone call those substandard before. Did you mean non-standard?
<I have to say that I agree completely; it just seems *wrong* to use "wanna" and "gotta" for "want a" and "got a" to me, to say the very least... >
Not really. The "/t/ sound is dropped in many cases:
e.g. He sent a/senna letter.
Not really. The "/t/ sound is dropped in many cases:
e.g. He sent a/senna letter.
Hey, this was the question. As yet, no one has answered it.
C'mon folks!
<<Hey, while you're all talking about "wanna", could you please tell me what constrains its use? >>
C'mon folks!
<<Hey, while you're all talking about "wanna", could you please tell me what constrains its use? >>
<<Hey, while you're all talking about "wanna", could you please tell me what constrains its use? >>
One limitation (at least for me) is that you can say "I wanna go.", but not "He wanna go.". With some of the others, you can say "He coulda gone.", "He woulda gone." etc. What's also interesting is that you can say "I've gotta go.", "He's gotta go.", and even "I gotta go.", but not "He gotta go.".
--------------------
I wonder how many of these things there are -- there's also "You hadda be there.", for example.
One limitation (at least for me) is that you can say "I wanna go.", but not "He wanna go.". With some of the others, you can say "He coulda gone.", "He woulda gone." etc. What's also interesting is that you can say "I've gotta go.", "He's gotta go.", and even "I gotta go.", but not "He gotta go.".
--------------------
I wonder how many of these things there are -- there's also "You hadda be there.", for example.