constraints on wanna

Guest   Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:07 am GMT
<< and even "I gotta go.", >>

Interestingly, "I gotta go" doesn't mean the same thing as "I got to go."
Lazar   Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:00 am GMT
<<Not really. The "/t/ sound is dropped in many cases:

e.g. He sent a/senna letter.>>

Travis isn't talking about the dropping of the [t] sound, he's talking about the graphical representation. The simplification of /nt/ to [n] or [4~] in cases like "twenty", "representative", "want a", "sent a" is a consistent allophonic process, so that's why it would be pointless to use a spelling like "senna" (or "wanna" in this case). But when used in place of "want to", "wanna" isn't a regular allophonic derivation, it's a distinct word. You wouldn't pronounce "I want tomatoes" as [aI "wAn @"meI47Uz] "I wannamatos", for example, and you wouldn't expect "want to" to be pronounced ["wAn@]. In my speech, I contrast the more colloquial "wanna" ["wQ:n@] with the more formal "want to" ["wQ:n? t_h@]. They sound different and they're phonemically distinct.
Lazar   Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:07 am GMT
<<One limitation (at least for me) is that you can say "I wanna go.", but not "He wanna go.">>

Same for me. That's because of the intervening /s/: it's easy for /nt.t/ to evolve into /n/, but it's not so easy for /nts.t/ to do the same.

<<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.".>>

Same for me again. I think that's because /v.g/ (as in "I've gotta") lends itself more to assimilation into /g/, but /z.g/ (as in "he's gotta") is more resistant to assimilation, I guess because of the stronger sibilant quality of [z] compared to [v].
OR   Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:35 am GMT
"Never seen anyone call those substandard before. Did you mean non-standard?"

I actually mean "whatever" English in contrast to the so-called "Standard English" that is so often touted as some sort of arbitrary (and wholly artificial) benchmark for the language.
OS   Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:37 am GMT
Given the eccentricities of the English spelling system, I would suggest it's a waste of time to discuss how "wanna" should look in written form.
Guest   Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:00 am GMT
>><<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.".>>

Same for me again. I think that's because /v.g/ (as in "I've gotta") lends itself more to assimilation into /g/, but /z.g/ (as in "he's gotta") is more resistant to assimilation, I guess because of the stronger sibilant quality of [z] compared to [v].<<

Actually, it seems that such is related to the general loss of the clitic "-'ve" attached to a pronoun or noun, which seems to be commonplace in actual spoken Engilsh, rather than anything particular to this specific case.

>>Given the eccentricities of the English spelling system, I would suggest it's a waste of time to discuss how "wanna" should look in written form.<<

The significance of "wanna" is not exactlly how it is spelled (for instance, I would spell it as "wonne" myself in my orthographic reform experiment), but rather that it signifies is status as an independent lexical unit which is not phonologically predictable, as opposed to being merely a sequence of "want" and "to" lexically.
Lazar   Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:32 am GMT
<<Actually, it seems that such is related to the general loss of the clitic "-'ve" attached to a pronoun or noun, which seems to be commonplace in actual spoken Engilsh, rather than anything particular to this specific case.>>

Really? "-'ve got" is the only context in which I would ever omit "-'ve", so the matter of /v.g/</g/ assimilation seems like the obvious explanation for me.
Guest   Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:38 am GMT
I often omit "'ve" before "seen", I've noticed. I wonder if I do it with other verbs.
Travis   Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:45 am GMT
>><<Actually, it seems that such is related to the general loss of the clitic "-'ve" attached to a pronoun or noun, which seems to be commonplace in actual spoken Engilsh, rather than anything particular to this specific case.>>

Really? "-'ve got" is the only context in which I would ever omit "-'ve", so the matter of /v.g/</g/ assimilation seems like the obvious explanation for me.<<

>>I often omit "'ve" before "seen", I've noticed. I wonder if I do it with other verbs.<<

I often hear the omission of "-'ve" before strong past participles in general myself. I do not notice myself doing so frequently, but I will catch myself omitting "-'ve" before strong past participles at times, and I may actually do it more frequently than I realize.
Guest   Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:44 pm GMT
Travis   Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:20 pm GMT
>><<One limitation (at least for me) is that you can say "I wanna go.", but not "He wanna go.">>

Same for me. That's because of the intervening /s/: it's easy for /nt.t/ to evolve into /n/, but it's not so easy for /nts.t/ to do the same.<<

How I would analyze this whole matter is that "to" has become attached to the quasimodal as an affix, and while in most cases this affix is just a separate attached morpheme, irregularities have appeared in the most common cases. Such irregularities involve both the affix "to" is conflated with the stem to which it is attached, and other irregular changes to the stem.

With such a few of things, "wanna" is just an irregular infinitive and present (non-third person singular indicative) form, whereas "wants to" is a regular third person singular present indicative form of the same word (despite how it is normally written as two words). "Wanna" is no different from other irregular forms such as /sEz/ for "says" when analyzed from this point of view, rather than being some exotic sort of fused word in alternation with two separate words "want" and "to"..
Richard   Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:19 am GMT
Where's here are some constraints on "wanna":

"Who do you want to win?"

"I want Jane to win"

In this case "want to" cannot be reduced to "wanna".

"He doesn't want to"

"wanna" cannot be used at the end of a sentence. Hence, you can't say *"He doesn't wanna" and likewise can't say *"He's not gonna".
Travis   Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:40 am GMT
>>Where's here are some constraints on "wanna":

"Who do you want to win?"

"I want Jane to win"

In this case "want to" cannot be reduced to "wanna".<<

This goes to show the grammaticalized function of "wanna" and why it is not a mere phonetic contraction of "want" and "to". In "who do you want to win", the matter is that even though "want" comes into contact with "to", "want" is really a main verb which is taking "who" as an indirect object. This is in clear contrast with the grammaticalized form "wanna", which can never have indirect objects as it solely has a modal function despite having a functional infinitive form (allowing chaining with other quasimodal forms).

>>"wanna" cannot be used at the end of a sentence. Hence, you can't say *"He doesn't wanna" and likewise can't say *"He's not gonna".<<

That is definitely not true here - "wanna" can show up sentence-finally, and while its version ending in [@] is relatively uncommon in sentence-final positions, its version ["wQ~4_j~}_^u:] is very common in sentence-final positions. Mind you that ["wQ~4_j~}_^u:] is a form of "wanna" which is very common in the dialect here, simply without the reduction of the final vowel to [@], and is not a mere contraction of "want to".
Guest   Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:22 pm GMT
<<Mind you that ["wQ~4_j~}_^u:] is a form of "wanna" which is very common in the dialect here, simply without the reduction of the final vowel to [@], and is not a mere contraction of "want to".>>

"Wanna" always has the schwa [@] vowel when used for me, and doesn't occur sentence-finally. I don't have your version with the unreduced vowel and have actually never heard of it until you mentioned it.
Lazar   Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:42 pm GMT
I often pronounce "wanna" as ["wQ:nu] before vowels.