The rise of a new auxiliary?
"Set to" reminds me a little of an actual (at least regional) proto-auxillary "Fixing to" (often reduced to "finny to") as in "I'm fixing to go" = "I'm going to go"/"I'm about to go"
"Fixing to" is used colloquially and does infer more of a future tense than "set to"
How new it is, or whether it's formally been recognized is rather uncertain to me at the present moment.
>>"Set to" reminds me a little of an actual (at least regional) proto-auxillary "Fixing to" (often reduced to "finny to") as in "I'm fixing to go" = "I'm going to go"/"I'm about to go"<<
"(Be) fixing to" is yet another example of a quasimodal form; it is quite akin to the other quasimodal forms I have listed here, except that it is relatively limited dialect-wise and is commonly deprecated outside the dialects which it is native to.
"Set to" can best be compared to "Ready to" right? [I'm set to leave now = I'm ready to leave now]. So it's not really a future tense marker at all, even though in business use this can be inferred.
<<"Set to" can best be compared to "Ready to" right? >>
And why not with "about to"?
<"Set to" can best be compared to "Ready to" right? [I'm set to leave now = I'm ready to leave now]. So it's not really a future tense marker at all, even though in business use this can be inferred. >
Note that in the thread quote, Swan talks about "set to" now being used with non-human subjects.
So, what does "interest rates are set to rise" mean, for you?
And again, is it:
I'm set/to leave
or:
I'm/set to/ leave
"Interest rates are set to rise" is a prediction. Hence, future reference.
"I'm set to leave" expresses intention.
The use of "set to" is different in each.
<<"Interest rates are set to rise" is a prediction. Hence, future reference.
>>
Not so...
"Interest rates are set to rise" implies that conditions are right for them to rise, but that's it. Possibility or potentiality is not future reference. They may be set to rise, but then not rise.
It's I'm set/to [whatever] for all.
Even in business, I do not hear /set to/ being used that way. It's bull...ish
>>"Interest rates are set to rise" implies that conditions are right for them to rise, but that's it. Possibility or potentiality is not future reference. They may be set to rise, but then not rise.<<
When I read that sentence I literally think that they're set to rise. As in, some dudes decided the rates should be higher so they set them to rise. I don't really think it's an auxiliary at all.
<<"Interest rates are set to rise" implies that conditions are right for them to rise, but that's it. Possibility or potentiality is not future reference. They may be set to rise, but then not rise.>>
Think that's what MollyB meant by calling it a prediction, it may not happen even though it could be somewhat expected to.
So, could we say this?
With the "new" use of set to, a future event has a current relevance in that its cause (rather than result) is situated in the present.
Not so...
"Interest rates are set to rise" implies that conditions are right for them to rise, but that's it. Possibility or potentiality is not future reference. They may be set to rise, but then not rise.
How did those conditions come about, FG?
<Think that's what MollyB meant by calling it a prediction, it may not happen even though it could be somewhat expected to. >
Exactly. I think some examples of the "new" use of "set to" are synoynous:
"Interest rates are set to/will/ are going to rise."
I think the newer use does not indicate "some guy has set interest rates to rise". That's the "old", but still very common, use. The use above is, for me, auxliary.
<How did those conditions come about, FG? >
Is FG around? OMG
<Is FG around? OMG >
Yes, he leaves his sh*t all over the place.
>><Think that's what MollyB meant by calling it a prediction, it may not happen even though it could be somewhat expected to. >
Exactly. I think some examples of the "new" use of "set to" are synoynous:
"Interest rates are set to/will/ are going to rise."
I think the newer use does not indicate "some guy has set interest rates to rise". That's the "old", but still very common, use. The use above is, for me, auxliary.<<
It seems that just about all such forms with "to" in such a role could be called "auxiliary" in a general sense of the term. The only thing is that such seems to be quite productive and is not frozen as classical English modal verbs are, even though the most common forms are clearly lexicalized due to non-phonological stem changes that have occurred in them.