The rise of a new auxiliary?

Is English seeing the rise of a new auxiliary? According to M Swan, it may be:

"Present-day English seems to be developing a new future auxiliary. It is very common, especially in journalistic writing, to read that something is 'set to' happen: interest rates are set to rise, pub opening hours are set to change. Not long ago, this was a metaphor (referring to a runner in the 'set' position just before the starting pistol is fired), used only for people who were ready to do something. Now it is losing its original meaning and becoming grammaticalized as an auxiliary, used not only for people but also for things and processes."

Well, to tell you the truth I've actually neither read nor heard anyone use this "new" auxiliary. But, perhaps it is developing it, or should I say is set to develop this new auxiliary, but it certainly hasn't caught on yet.

I have heard this a lot in business speak, but not in normal English.

Is "set" really a new auxilliary here, or just a new expression? For example, you could substitute "assumed", "planned", "expected", "supposed", for "set" in these sentences (with a change in meaning, of course). Are all of these auxilliaries?

I would agree with Lalonde, except that it does not seem exactly equivalent with "be going to". Rather, it actually seems a bit close to "be about to" except that "be about to" does imply more immediacy than "be set to".

I agree with Travis: the meaning is closer to "about to" than "going to".

I agree with Lalonde. Travis has missed the point.

It's not a new auxilliary (at least not yet) Do you use it in the negative or even in questions? It's in the 'about to' and 'due to' and 'are / is to' category.

<Is "set" really a new auxilliary here, or just a new expression? For example, you could substitute "assumed", "planned", "expected", "supposed", for "set" in these sentences (with a change in meaning, of course). Are all of these auxilliaries? >

They might be. Is "going to" an auxilary here, for you?

I'm going to tell him what I think of him.

<It's not a new auxilliary (at least not yet)>

I know, that's why I wrote:

Is English seeing the rise of a new auxiliary?

<< I agree with Lalonde. Travis has missed the point. >>

Explain.

<<I have heard this a lot in business speak, but not in normal English. >>

What on earth is "normal English"?

>>They might be. Is "going to" an auxilary here, for you?

I'm going to tell him what I think of him.<<

The matter is that it acts as a quasimodal-type form, which are commonly grammaticalized in English dialects and which fall into a grammar-word type role, but at the same time are still more of an open word class than true classical modal verbs are, which are a strictly closed word class. Furthermore, quasimodals are easily derived from "normal" verbs, as they act like normal verbs except that they are lexicalized and, in many to most dialects, are largely inseparable from the following "to" (even though there are special circumstances in which separation can occur even in dialects such as mine where such separation is normally completely forbidden, as discussed in the "tend to not"/"tend not to" thread).

<<The matter is that it acts as a quasimodal-type form,...>>

Erm... so are is "set to" becoming an auxiliary?

>>Erm... so are is "set to" becoming an auxiliary?<<

I wouldn't call it an auxiliary proper, as I would limit such to just "have" and "be" (and would treat even "will" as a modal rather than a true auxiliary). However, as to whether it is becoming a *grammar word*, that really depends on whether one treats quasimodals as grammatical forms, and then whether one treats only the most strongly lexicalized quasimodals such as "have to" and "be going to" as being grammatical forms or one opens such to quasimodals in general.