# gonna, gotta, wanna



## Troy-B.

Hola, si alguien puede ayudarme a entender un poco más el ingles, quisiera saber cuando los verbos o expesiones gonna, gotta, wanna deben usarse, es decir, si obedecen a alguna conjugación de los mismo.
Gracias de antemano.


----------



## geostan

Troy-B. said:


> Hola, si alguien puede ayudarme a entender un poco más el ingles, quisiera saber cuando los verbos o expesiones gonna, gotta, wanna deben usarse, es decir, si obedecen a alguna conjugación de los mismo.
> Gracias de antemano.



They are horrible distortions of going to, want to and got to, that are never correct, but are used by most people in everyday conversations...including me, I'm sorry to say. But no one should ever write them unless he is writing dialogue.

Cheers!


----------



## SrRdRaCinG

Troy-B. said:


> Hola, si alguien puede ayudarme a entender un poco más el ingles, quisiera saber cuando los verbos o expesiones gonna, gotta, wanna deben usarse, es decir, si obedecen a alguna conjugación de los mismo.
> Gracias de antemano.


 

Gonna=Going to
Wanna=Want to
Gotta=Got to (have to)

Se deben usar cuando uno habla con un amigo suyo o alguien así. Pero, encuentro que a muchos, *incluyéndome* a mí, les gusta usar "wanna, gotta, gonna" cuando hablan con un profesor o un entrenador o alguien que hace mucho que conocen. Cuando se trata de algo formal, *uno *debe darse cuenta de que suena mal y *de* que se debe usar "have to" "want to" y "going to". La persona sonará cult*a* *e *inteligente.


----------



## Dudu678

SrRdRaCinG said:


> Se deben usar cuando uno habla con un amigo suyo o alguien así. Pero, encuentro que muchos, incluyendo yo, *que* usan "wanna, gotta, gonna" cuando hablan con un profesor o un entrenador o alguien que hace mucho que conocen. Cuando se trata de algo formal, *se* _uno_ debe darse cuenta de que suena mal y *de* que se debe usar "have to" "want to" y "going to". La persona sonará cult*a* *e* inteligente.


_Incluyendo yo... _no me gusta demasiado, mejor di:
_- yo incluído
- incluyéndome a mí
- y me incluyo

 _


----------



## CarolMamkny

Hola!

Esas expresiones son bastante informales y se usan mas que todo al hablar( Se las he incluso escuchado a mis profesores y jefes) . No te recomiendo que las uses mucho al hablar si no tienen un manejo muy bueno del ingles. En lo que se refiere a escribirlas.... las vez mas que todos en e-mails y mensajes de texto (en los telefonos mobiles) mas nunca la uses cuando escribas una carta o e-mail formal por que no son expresiones adecuadas *y la verdad sonaras como alguien que no ha tenido una educacion formal* Espero te sirva mi ayuda

Caro


----------



## SrRdRaCinG

Dudu678 said:


> _Incluyendo yo... _no me gusta demasiado, mejor di:
> _- yo incluído_
> _- incluyéndome a mí_
> _- y me incluyo_
> 
> _ _


 
Antes de que me corrigieras, cambié la oración. Así que, echale una mirada ya.


----------



## Dudu678

SrRdRaCinG said:


> Antes de que me corrigieras, cambié la oración. Así que, echale una mirada ya.


Todavía está mal . Sería _incluyéndome a mí_.

Y además fíjate en que has puesto incluy*u*endo, sobra una U.


----------



## SrRdRaCinG

Bueno, ahora, le he añando las detalles a la oración que le faltaban antes.


----------



## Dudu678

SrRdRaCinG said:


> Bueno, ahora, le he añando las detalles a la oración que le faltaban antes.


Ahora está perfecto.


----------



## gramatica

Gonna no es correcto. Mucha gente dice "I'm gonna go to the movies"=*Voy a ir al cine.* Pero lo correcto es "*I'm going to go to the movies."* 

Gonna suena horrible.

I gotta go to the store=*Tengo que ir a la tienda.* Tambien es muy malo. Lo correcto es "*I have to go to the store*."

I wanna go to the store=*Quiero ir a la tienda*. Tambien es mal. Lo correcto es "*I want to go to the store."*

*No recomendaria que usaras "gonna, gotta, wanna." De las tres palabras "gotta" es lo mas correcto pero todavia suena mal. Como dije todas estas palabras son incorrectas y suenan mal pero mucha gente las dice.*

Espero haberte ayudado
Saludos


----------



## Dudu678

Si bien usarlas no es muy correcto, sí es muy muy común. Por ello es importante conocer su significado para no tener que interrumpir una coversación por este motivo.

Es como decir en español _m'han da'o _en lugar de _me han dado_. De hecho un estudiante adelantado que de verdad quiera usar la forma relajada, si lo hace muy bien, es más natural.

Nada de esto significa que en el lenguaje escrito no se deba siempre mantener la forma correcta.


----------



## Christian

Dialect spelling, that's all.  .  

I'm gonna kill you!

You gotta stop bugging me!

You wanna buy some drugs, dude? 

Usually comic, or at least not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Pando

Christian said:


> Dialect spelling, that's all.  .
> 
> I'm gonna kill you!
> 
> You gotta stop bugging me!
> 
> You wanna buy some drugs, dude?
> 
> Usually comic, or at least not to be taken seriously.


Of course it depends on the situation, but personally, I would take that first one seriously.


----------



## alumnisimo

¿Cuándo la  clausa   *"incluyéndome" * llegó a la frase no hizo que hubiera necesitado cambiar la siguiente clausa a *"nos gusta..."* ya que esta incluido el hablante entre ellos de que se habla? Just a thought from a New York student.


----------



## alumnisimo

En la frase: _" ¿Desganado yo? Pero yo soy él que quiere más pollo , mamá."

_ ¿Cuál es el subjeto? ¿*EL* o *Yo*? Aqui se ve que el verbo ahora corresponde al pronombre *El. *


----------



## Slyder

SrRdRaCinG said:


> Gonna=Going to
> Wanna=Want to
> Gotta=Got to (have to)
> 
> Se deben usar cuando uno habla con un amigo suyo o alguien así*, pero* encuentro que a muchos, *incluyéndome* a mí, les gusta usar "wanna, gotta, gonna" cuando hablan con un profesor o un entrenador o alguien que hace mucho que conocen. Cuando se trata de algo formal, *uno *debe darse cuenta de que suena mal y *de* que se debe usar "have to" "want to" y "going to". La persona sonará cult*a* *e *inteligente.
> 
> Bueno, ahora, le he aña*di*do las detalles a la oración que le faltaban antes.


 
* Es correcto usar: "incluyéndome a mí", mas bien, me parece extraño decir: "incluyendo yo" como lo dijo dudu678.

____________________
Don't hesitate to correct me!

*Slyder *


----------



## Dudu678

alumnisimo said:


> En la frase: _" ¿Desganado yo? Pero yo soy el que quiere más pollo , mamá."
> 
> _ ¿Cuál es el subjeto? ¿*EL* o *Yo*? Aqu*í* se ve que el verbo ahora corresponde al pronombre *El. *


No es _él_, es _el que_ (who, the one who).
_
Soy yo el que quiere más pollo.
It's me who wants more chicken.

_Espero que lo entiendas ahora.


----------



## Dudu678

alumnisimo said:


> ¿Cuándo la  clausa   *"incluyéndome" * llegó a la frase no hizo que hubiera necesitado cambiar la siguiente clausa a *"nos gusta..."* ya que esta incluido el hablante entre ellos de que se habla? Just a thought from a New York student.


Puedes usar ambos, ya que el objeto indirecto (sujeto semántico) sigue siento la gente.

Todas estas son válidas:

_A mucha gente le gusta el chocolate.
A mucha gente nos gusta el chocolate.
A mucha gente os gusta el chocolate.

_Aunque en teoría en la primera y en la tercera el hablante no se incluye, puede hacer una referencia a sí mismo en tercera persona.


----------



## alumnisimo

Okee Dokee Dudu. Y Gracias por su profunda atención a la teoría. En realidad me encanta lo que traes a estas discusiones.


----------



## Dudu678

alumnisimo said:


> Okee Dokee Dudu. Y Gracias por su profunda atención a la teoría. En realidad me encanta lo que traes a estas discusiones.


Jeje, un placer  Fíjate en que he editado un par de imprecisiones en mis mensajes anteriores.

¡Suerte!


----------



## Carlos_JO

En español de España (pues desconozco si se pronuncia así en Sudamérica) se puede comparar con:

He estao en el mercao comprando pescao

donde lo correcto es:

He estado en el mercado comprando pescado


----------



## Slyder

Carlos_JO said:


> En español de España (pues desconozco si se pronuncia así en Sudamérica) se puede comparar con:
> 
> He estao en el mercao comprando pescao
> 
> donde lo correcto es:
> 
> He estado en el mercado comprando pescado


 
Sí, aca en Perú se suele abreviar las palabras así. Creo que en otros países vecinos también.


----------



## Ivan Ariel

Guys, just a question, is it possible to use the contraction form 'wanna' in a question like this?

'Where do you want us to leave you?' = 'Where do you wanna us leave you?'

Correct me if necessary.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## aloofsocialite

Hi Ivan Ariel,

Not usually, no.  We would either say "want us" as you have indicated, or in the fast speech of the dialect of English I speak, the "t" of "want" would get dropped and "us" would be joined with it, so it would sound something like "Where do you wan'nus to leave you?"  There is no written form for this, it is purely a pronunciation difference.

However:

"Where do you wanna be left?"


----------



## Chasint

Ivan Ariel said:


> Guys, just a question, is it possible to use the contraction form 'wanna' in a question like this?
> 
> 'Where do you want us to leave you?' = 'Where do you wanna us leave you?'
> 
> Correct me if necessary.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


I'd simply say no.

"wanna" is a contraction of "want to"

You cannot say _'Where do you wanna us leave you?'_ because that would mean _'Where do you want to us leave you?' _

In any case I would avoid using it at all. As others have pointed out, it should never be used when speaking or writing formally. Frankly, if you have to ask then your English isn't good enough yet to know when it is appropriate!


----------



## Ivan Ariel

Aloofsocialite, you explanation regarding your pronunciation really answered my question, thanks a million!

Biffo, i understand your point. I'm not talkin' about formality, though; so, what do you mean by a good (or not) use of the language? In my opinion, american speakers use all of these contractions all the time just to sound more natural, and i know for sure that most of them know when to use them, and when not, when it's appropriate or not. Nevertheless, thanks for your contribution!


----------



## ayuda?

*This got a little interesting* and I found a few things on a Google search that added some more detail and examples.
Once you become conscious of these contractions and how often they and other words like them are actually used in everyday speech, you start to become conscious of your own use of them. It does seem to be more common in American English also. 
I have  heard the President, senators, influential businessmen,people in the media, and very educated people use these words a lot; however, like everyone says, writing it is a no-no although, as one of the references states, it is creeping into the literature to some degree. It would be interesting to know just how long ago these expressions became common usage?? 

l Search Google>useof *wanna gonna gotta*à a couple of the following results:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv165.shtml [gonna, wanna, gotta]
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/62045/how-often-do-people-say-gotta-wanna-or-gonna-in-english-speaking-countrie
http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/contractions-informal.htm  [excellent link to a contraction song]
http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/29815-wanna-gonna-gotta.html

l*More similar contractions:* Reference is also made to the following contractions, which, to some degree or another, you seem to hear often enough. And if you think about it, many of us are “guilty“ of using  them sometimes without even noticing, especially when we speak quickly:
watchya gonna = what are you going…
I dunno = I don’t know
gimme = give me
kinda = kind of
ya = you
woulda = would have
shoulda = should have
dontcha = don’t you
wontcha =won’t  you
cantcha =can’t you

*Edit: *Changed spelling of last 3 words


----------



## Chasint

ayuda? said:


> *...*
> dontya = don’t you...


I've also seen the spellings doncha/dontcha/Don't cha.


Example

_Don't cha wish your girlfriend was hot like me?
Don't cha wish your girlfriend was a freak like me?
Don't cha?_
*"Don't Cha" The Pussycat Dolls (feat. Busta Rhymes)*
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/pussycatdolls/dontcha.html

Ivan Ariel - I think it is worth pointing out that very often such words are deliberately mis-spelled in song lyrics.  The purpose is to give a more accurate phonetic version of the singer's pronunciation.

I personally think that is acceptable, however its use shouldn't be extended into ordinary writing (in my opinion)


----------



## k-in-sc

These forms are not true contractions, they're written renditions of pronunciation.  Non-natives tend to be fascinated by them and use them inappropriately.


----------



## ayuda?

Actually, they are, by definition, true contractions even though they are not acceptable in formal, written English. That’s how they are written to explain such speech and are contractions (e.g., kind ofà kinda, etc.). When written that way on Word, though, you will see the red underlining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_(grammar)
A *contraction* is a shortened version of the written and spoken forms of a word, syllable, or word group, created by omission of internal letters (actually, sounds)…[1]


----------



## Chasint

ayuda? said:


> Actually, they are, by definition, true contractions even though they are not acceptable in formal, written English. That’s how they are written to explain such speech and are contractions (e.g., kind ofà kinda, etc.). When written that way on Word, though, you will see the red underlining.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_(grammar)
> A *contraction* is a shortened version of the written and spoken forms of a word, syllable, or word group, created by omission of internal letters (actually, sounds)…[1]


To be fair, the article you quote isn't quite so definite. Later it says:

_Some other simplified pronunciations of common word groups, which can equally be described as cases of elision, may also be considered (non-standard) contractions (not enshrined into the written standard language, but frequently expressed in written form anyway), such as wanna for want to, gonna for going to, y'all for you all, and others common in colloquial speech._


----------



## ayuda?

It really does become just a matter of semantics, however, and things start to get off point. I see it as a shortened version of a spoken form. [ http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/contractions-informal.htm  uses the word *contraction *also, and that’s a pretty established site.]

No matter what we call them, these are common colloquial expressions, and that’s the real issue here. In the end, you have to ask yourself, what’s the real issue and what does this really matter to your average Spanish speaker? Sometimes you get small, extraneous stuff that throws things way off track that doesn’t really have to do with the main question anymore and is only a distraction—something  more appropriate for the English Only Forum.You see this all the time?? I’ll leave it at that because threads like this_ do_ tend to go on, as I am confident this one will. Respectfully submitted.


----------



## k-in-sc

Unlike regular contractions, the "non-standard contractions" are for rendering dialogue or the sound of speech and therefore are not appropriate in normal writing. How many times have you seen a Spanish speaker post something on the forum like: "I wanna know if ..."  or "I'm gonna ask my teacher"  ?


----------



## More od Solzi

k-in-sc said:


> Unlike regular contractions, the "non-standard contractions" are for rendering dialogue or the sound of speech and therefore are not appropriate in normal writing



In formal writing, more often than not, any contraction can be seen as ''colloquial'' and ''inelegant''.
I can't remember the last time I saw ''won't'',''isn't''  or ''should've'' in a medical/scientific article.

(quoting the original text):


> I  would  like  to  endorse  The  Lancet’s  comments  about  the  need  to  revive  research  into  psychedelic  drugs  (April 15, p 1214).
> I  am  the  director  of  the  Beckley  Foundation,  a  charitable  trust  that is  starting  a  programme  of  research  into  the  neurophysiological  effects of  lysergic  acid  diethylamide  (LSD)


.

I'd like to endorse...
I'm the director...


----------



## Ivan Ariel

Now, i understand you point people! Thanks a million for all your help!!! From now on, i'will try to avoid using them!


----------



## ayuda?

k-in-sc said:


> Unlike regular contractions, the "non-standard contractions" are for rendering dialogue or the sound of speech and therefore are not appropriate in normal writing. How many times have you seen a Spanish speaker post something on the forum like: "I wanna know if ..."  or "I'm gonna ask my teacher"  ?



l I’m glad that the grammar of *gonna, wanna,gotta*, etc., is at least more on point here this time.
l No English speaker would suggest that these contractions should ever be used in formal written English.
l None of those articles even remotely suggests using it as such. The point was also made quite clearly in Spanish, too.
l Not everything is about learning formal written language: there is the listening phase of language learning also. That’s probably the hardest for Spanish speakers, given that English is not always phonetic. What we _are_ talking about is informal things you will hear or possibly see in everyday speech, which most posts here have clearly stated. I repeat: I have also heard the President use these words when speaking after I got a little more conscious about listening to grammar from posts I have seen here on WR. It is that common and mainstream.
lWhat I think we are saying is Spanish speakers should recognize it when they hear it or see it. That’s the real point of what I provided, and I think that it is quite obvious from the information given by the experts if anyone takes the time to Read the BBC excerpt and the other ones. That’s what the Spanish speaker wants to know, I believe. That’s why you never see a Spanish speaker make a post like you suggested…because it is already know that that is, by no means, formal and they most likely want to know what it is when they see it or hear it, since they can be seen as completely different, distinct words, and you are not likely to find it in a grammar book. That is the point!

l I also agree with More od Solzi’s post about very formal writing [any contraction can be seen as ''colloquial'' and''inelegant'']. It is probably best to avoid even that in such cases.


----------



## Mackinder

Informal. Not to be used in formal contexts because inappropriate right


----------



## Ivan Ariel

Quisiera asegurarme una cuestión:

Tanto wanna, gotta, como gonna, son posibles en tercera persona del singular (He/she) ?

Muchas gracias.


----------



## horsewishr

Ivan Ariel said:


> Quisiera asegurarme una cuestión:
> 
> Tanto wanna, gotta, como gonna, son posibles en tercera persona del singular (He/she) ?
> 
> Muchas gracias.



He wants to x.
He's gotta x. (he has got to)
He's gonna x. (he is going to)


----------



## Ivan Ariel

Thanks a million!


----------



## duvija

I didn't find here a general issue: you may contract before a verb but not before a noun:
I gotta go to the library.
I gotta the library.


----------



## aloofsocialite

Concuerdo completamente con horsewishr:

I wanna/gotta go to the store
You wanna/gotta go to the store
He wanna/gotta go to the store (Este no suele usarse excepto en algunos dialectos del inglés afroamericano)
We wanna/gotta go to the store
They wanna/gotta go to the store


----------



## spangish

"Gonna," as a contraction for "going to" denotes "will" or "shall."
I am going to kill you. I'm gonna kill you. I shall kill you. I will kill you.
However, "gonna" cannot replace "going to" in the sentence, "I'm going to Spain."


----------



## duvija

spangish said:


> "Gonna," as a contraction for "going to" denotes "will" or "shall."
> I am going to kill you. I'm gonna kill you. I shall kill you. I will kill you.
> However, "gonna" cannot replace "going to" in the sentence, "I'm going to Spain."



Yes, that's why I said it has to be followed by a verb. It doesn't accept a noun.


----------

