The rise of a new auxiliary?

Guest   Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:35 pm GMT
"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.
Travis   Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:15 pm GMT
>>"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.
Guest   Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:04 pm GMT
"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.
Guest   Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:49 am GMT
<<"Set to" can best be compared to "Ready to" right? >>

And why not with "about to"?
MollyB   Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:07 am GMT
<"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
MollyB   Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:10 am GMT
"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.
BDL   Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:24 am GMT
<<"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
Lo   Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:26 am GMT
>>"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.
Guest   Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:37 am GMT
<<"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.
MollyB   Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:57 am GMT
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.
Guest   Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am GMT
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?
MollyB   Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:03 am GMT
<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.
MollyB   Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:05 am GMT
<How did those conditions come about, FG? >

Is FG around? OMG
Guest   Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:28 am GMT
<Is FG around? OMG >

Yes, he leaves his sh*t all over the place.
Travis   Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:35 pm GMT
>><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.