Why is "gonna" still considered slang?

[tapu]

@guizot

Because discursively it’s not part of resume language anyway, so this isn’t a good example. We need to keep in mind that gonna is realized ONLY as part of the periphrastic modal be going to–for conveying future plans. What you usually do in a resume, on the contrary, is talk about your past.

Heh.

[Reply]

@guizot

Well, that’s great, but it’s just you, and I’m really referring to conventions on a larger scale. If you’re going to use a corpus, why not use COCA (it’s free, but you need to register). I just suggest that when you do a corpus search (which I do in my job on a regular basis), it’s not simply a matter of throwing out a percentage of KWIC hits–you have to do the hard work of looking over context, and maybe even refining your search to code for that. Going is not always part of be going to, for example.
Again, reread my post more carefully. I have said NOTHING about usefulness or correctness. I’m just talking about what people tend to do when they write, in particular contexts, with regard to the particular concern of the OP.

I don’t know what any of that means, but if you can do that, please do. I’m questioning your premise that people don’t use it in non-formal writing, even if you exclude social media and limit it only to email.

I’m not questioning that it’s considered informal.

[guizot]

@Reply

I’m questioning your premise that people don’t use it in non-formal writing, even if you exclude social media and limit it only to email.

I think that’s a very legitimate question, that indeed would be worth the research, because I’ve always viewed gonna (and wanna, too, BTW, which is a similar phenomenon) as a good illustration of the cognitive “schism” between speech and writing, in that a lot of people who would never write “gonna” often claim that they never say it either, but just about everyone does say it, when they’re speaking naturally. IOW, the convention against written gonna (and written wanna) is so staunch that it causes a kind of blinder toward one’s own speech self-awareness.

We’d have to decide what we mean by “formal” and “non-formal” writing, of course. I consider workplace emails mostly non-formal, but governed by certain conventions nevertheless. If in fact people are using “gonna” in such writing, for example–without “repercussion”–it would be really interesting to know.

[eschereal]

@kayaker

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Oh, come on, you know very well, it is “would of, could of, should of”.

[tapu]

@eschereal

Oh, come on, you know very well, it is “would of, could of, should of”.

Shoot me now.

[Senegoid]

How language mutates and grows.

@guizot

Look–the OP wonders why the written form “gonna” is considered “slang,” probably meaning by the tern “slang” non-standard. All I’m saying is that even in non-formal writing–which today most people do in workplace email–the standard, (the convention), is still to transcribe what we pronounce as “gonna” with going to. If I were to transcribe it as gonna it would reflect negatively on me in my job.

See, I made a joke on “all ternative” a few posts up. Then gigi posted a link to a cartoon about terns of reference. And now even guizot himself is doing it!

ETA: Oops, that was in the other thread, about “all right” vs “alright”. Still the point stands.

[Dogzilla]

Redacted as not-that-funny joke was already ninja’d. That’s what I get for not reading the entire thread before posting.

I’ll just show myself out.

[kayaker]

@tapu

Shoot me now.

A’ight.

[ALOHA_HATER]

@jtur88

The N-gram viewer reports that “gonna” did not occur at all in writing until about 1918

Google Ngram Viewer: gonna,going to

There is also the word “gwine” which. in the Pre-PC era, was widely used by white writers from Mark Twain to Walt Kelly to represent speaking voices of African Americans, a usage that is chronicled in modern dictionaries:

gwine:
verb, Chiefly Southern U.S. Nonstandard.

1. present part. of go.

Of course, anhyone who argued that that should “no longer be slang” would be required to undergo mandatory sensitivity reprogramming.

The English language, as a formal instrument, has evolved slowly and deliberately over the centuries. One should be careful to not allow upstarts to take command of it to suit their ephemeral purposes. It can be hoped (with little conviction) that dictionaries will continue to differentiate formal English from that which is not. Texting, as everything, too shall pass.

Do not burden lexicology with your every whim. Sadly, dictionaries went through a state in the colonial era when the English accepted all those words from the Raj and the Crimean war, relating to everything Asian from court titles to military uniform accouterments of the bloody heathens, which are now acceptable only in Scrabble. Once a word goes into the dictionaries, it never comes out, so be a little circumspect about what you put in there.

Jesus, where’d you get that huge bummer you’re carrying around? It’s not often you see a post so self-important and factually incorrect. The English language is not a formal instrument, it has evolved quickly and haphazardly, and there’s no such thing as the right way to use it. Your exclusive perspective went through a state in the colonial era and never got over it.