# Gonna



## Poland91pl

Hello. Can " Gonna " be used in a formal setting like eg on the news?


----------



## The Newt

Poland91pl said:


> Hello. Can " Gonna " be used in a formal setting like eg on the news?



In a word, no.


----------



## entangledbank

You shouldn't even write it in informal settings like this, except to discuss it.


----------



## Cenzontle

When American news announcers are not reading from a script—when they are speaking spontaneously—
they frequently say "gonna", just like 99% of other speakers of American English.
However, this does NOT give you permission to spell it that way.
Always write "going to".


----------



## heypresto

You probably won't hear it on the news, but, in the UK at least, you'll hear it naturally spoken by (almost) everybody else, from professors, lords and politicians to ordinary folk like me. That's not to say that anybody does it deliberately, or that you should do it. It just happens when people speak fluently.

It's only written in places like this, or when representing someone's speech.


----------



## Egmont

People generally don't actually think of themselves as saying "gonna," unless they're trying to make a point about pronunciation. "Gonna" is an attempt to reproduce, in writing, how "going to" can sound when it's spoken in an informal situation. There's nothing wrong with saying "going to" so it sounds like that, but unless you are writing out informal dialogue, or you are texting and want to appear informal, there is never a reason to use it in writing. Careful speakers, such as the news reporters on the stations I usually watch, don't use it in speech either.


----------



## DonnyB

I doubt that many newsreaders would use it, or speak quickly enough for anything he/she said to sound like "gonna".

Clearly and obviously if anybody being interviewed live said "gonna" then that's what it would be reported as and if for any reason subtitles were used I'd expect to see it written as "gonna".  It is widely used in informal spoken English by all sorts of people.


----------



## Florentia52

Here are some previous threads that should be helpful, Poland91pl:

gonna, wanna, gotta
wanna, gonna, etc


----------



## Poland91pl

Cenzontle said:


> When American news announcers are not reading from a script—when they are speaking spontaneously—
> they frequently say "gonna", just like 99% of other speakers of American English.
> However, this does NOT give you permission to spell it that way.
> Always write "going to".


Do young people (around 30 yo ) use GONNA when messaging , texting ?


----------



## Keith Bradford

<> People when texting may use any rubbish that comes to hand.  Sometimes it even makes sense.

But that's simply admitting there are special vocabularies and styles for different purposes - it's known as *register*.  Until around 2013, telegrams were sent in which where every word cost money.  That led to a special language called telegramese, which looked like this: HEREWITH EXAMPLE TELEGRAMESE STOP ACKNOWLEDGE SOONEST END.

On this website we use *informal academic register* - contractions such as _gonna, wanna, gotta_ are forbidden, as are extensive capital letters. But they may be found in texting and elsewhere.

< Minor edit.  Cagey, moderator >


----------



## cidertree

Keith Bradford said:


> People when texting may use any rubbish that comes to hand.  Sometimes it even makes sense.
> 
> ...


It _always_ makes sense, sometimes even to me.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Poland91pl said:


> Do young people (around 30 yo ) use GONNA when messaging , texting ?


When I worked in university administration in the US, up to about 5 years ago, the students who used 'wanna' and 'gonna' in emails to me (and I received many many emails from students) were definitely not native English speakers.


----------



## Tegs

Poland91pl said:


> Do young people (around 30 yo ) use GONNA when messaging , texting ?


Yes, and it’s fine in that context.


----------



## DonnyB

Poland91pl said:


> Do young people (around 30 yo ) use GONNA when messaging , texting ?


Yes, I come across it all the time.


----------



## Poland91pl

Roxxxannne said:


> When I worked in university administration in the US, up to about 5 years ago, the students who used 'wanna' and 'gonna' in emails to me (and I received many many emails from students) were definitely not native English speakers.


So in a formal setting it’s out of the question to use GONNA - obvious  what about native English speakers messaging to one another?


----------



## glamorgan

Poland91pl said:


> So in a formal setting it’s out of the question to use GONNA - obvious  what about native English speakers messaging to one another?


When messaging *each other*, native English speakers use whatever word forms, contractions, and abbreviations that are in current use. Outside their groups, particularly when contacting strangers, they will, or should, start by using more formal messaging language. I see it as  matter of politeness and of not making assumptions about the style of communication preferred by the other person.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Poland91pl said:


> ...what about native English speakers messaging to one another?


I can only speak for the people I message to and read:  I've never seen or used _gonna_. If someone did write it I would soon stop reading their messages.


----------



## abluter

Anyone can adopt any register they like; it's a free country.  But they must expect resistance from those who like to think of themselves as the guardians of linguistic propriety.


----------



## DonnyB

Poland91pl said:


> what about native English speakers messaging to one another?


I can and do use "gonna" quite frequently with my friends and people I know. 

I'd possibly think twice about doing it with someone I _didn't_ know, but as with all these things you develop your own preferred style of communication and even if the recipient doesn't like it _most_ people would be too polite to comment on it. Chances are, they use expressions you don't like and wouldn't use, so it cuts both ways.


----------



## elroy

Egmont said:


> "Gonna" is an attempt to reproduce, in writing, how "going to" can sound when it's spoken in an informal situation.


This myth is broadly propagated in these forums.
I routinely use "gonna" in writing and I'm not "attempting to reproduce how 'going to' can sound when it's spoken in an informal situation."


heypresto said:


> It's only written in places like this, or when representing someone's speech.


This is factually inaccurate.  It is broadly used in many contexts where the writer is not discussing the word or representing someone's speech.


entangledbank said:


> You shouldn't even write it in informal settings like this, except to discuss it.





Cenzontle said:


> this does NOT give you permission to spell it that way.





Egmont said:


> unless you are writing out informal dialogue, or you are texting and want to appear informal, there is never a reason to use it in writing.


@Poland91pl: You will find that opinions are divided on this.  The above three recommendations represent _one_ camp.  I, and others, are in the other camp.  "gonna" is a legitimate English word that is regularly used in various contexts by English native speakers.  You are welcome to use it in any context in which it fits.


Keith Bradford said:


> contractions such as _gonna, wanna, gotta_ are forbidden


To my knowledge, they are not.


Roxxxannne said:


> the students who used 'wanna' and 'gonna' in emails to me (and I received many many emails from students) were definitely not native English speakers.


I would not (typically) use it in a student-to-professor e-mail either.


----------



## DonnyB

elroy said:


> contractions such as _gonna, wanna, gotta_ are forbidden
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge, they are not.
Click to expand...

In fact, "gonna" _is _on a 'banned list'.  From the EO forum guidelines:


panjandrum said:


> *Chatspeak, SMS abbreviations and capital letters*
> 
> *Chatspeak *and _*SMS abbreviations*_ are forbidden in the English Only forum, other than as topics of discussion.
> 
> Do not write "u" for "you", "thx" for "thank you", "btw" for "by the way", *"gonna" for "going to"*, _etc_.


This may be partly how people are picking up the misconception that it's some sort of textspeak abbreviation when it actually isn't one.  Personally I think we could usefully look at altering that, but this thread is clearly not the right place to do it.


----------



## Ponyprof

The thing to realize is that spoken "going to" will come out somewhere on a continuum between "going to"  and "gonna." There are infinite gradations that could only be captured by a linguist skilled in IPA notation. Gointa. Go enna. Go eena. Etc. In general, the more careful the speech, the more enunciated. "The news" is a very broad category. Does it mean BBC World Service or a reporter in Alabama live at the scene of a train wreck, or a very young infotainment reporter gushing over a new celebrity? No one can say for sure what all English news shows say in every situation or accent.

We do not write gonna or wanna unless we are trying to capture speech patterns. That's when these words end up in fictional dialogue, song lyrics, texts, memes, etc.

It's important to know this for your passive listening or reading skills. But it's not a good idea for an English learner to push forward reducing sounds before mastering them.

I'd add that "going to go" for an all purpose future tense is in itself a bit informal. More formal English may use will or other verbs. 

I'm going to go shopping. 
I will go shopping. 
I plan to go shopping. 

Going to go plus gerund is the phrase that gets reduced the most.


----------



## elroy

Ponyprof said:


> We do not write gonna or wanna unless we are trying to capture speech patterns.


This is, again, not true.


----------



## Egmont

elroy said:


> Egmont said:
> 
> "Gonna" is an attempt to reproduce, in writing, how "going to" can sound when it's spoken in an informal situation.
> 
> 
> 
> This myth is broadly propagated in these forums.
> I routinely use "gonna" in writing and I'm not "attempting to reproduce how 'going to' can sound when it's spoken in an informal situation."
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a myth, but I probably should have written " 'Gonna' originated as an attempt to reproduce how 'going to' can sound when it is spoken informally, but has become a word in its own right that is appropriate in certain types of informal writing." Can we agree on that?


----------



## elroy

Egmont said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to call it a myth


It is a myth because the real uses of “gonna” extend far beyond the narrow confines often claimed to exist by users here. 


Egmont said:


> 'Gonna' originated as an attempt to reproduce how 'going to' can sound when it is spoken informally


I don’t know how it originated, so I don’t have an opinion on this.


Egmont said:


> a word in its own right that is appropriate in certain types of informal writing


That I can agree to.


----------



## MattiasNYC

I have to agree with Elroy here and disagree with Ponyprof and Egmont regarding what I quoted below.

I work as a sound engineer and I've edited dialog for a couple of decades now. As far as I can tell "going to" never sounds like "gonna". It's possible that "gonna" somehow originated from some extremely sloppy pronunciation of "going to" but I never ever hear anyone say it that poorly in real life, it's either "going to" or "gonna", never the former 'sounding like' the latter. So to me it just doesn't seem like the latter is a spelling of how the former frequently sounds.

I know this seems like splitting hairs maybe, but it is fundamentally different from for example the mistake of writing "should've" as "should of", a case where it seems very likely that the writer incorrectly writes what he hears when a correct spelling already exists (and where it really does often sound like the way it is misspelled).

Just my two cents on the matter based on what I've experienced so far.



Ponyprof said:


> The thing to realize is that spoken "going to" will come out somewhere on a continuum between "going to"  and "gonna." There are infinite gradations that could only be captured by a linguist skilled in IPA notation. Gointa. Go enna. Go eena. Etc. In general, the more careful the speech, the more enunciated. "The news" is a very broad category. Does it mean BBC World Service or a reporter in Alabama live at the scene of a train wreck, or a very young infotainment reporter gushing over a new celebrity? No one can say for sure what all English news shows say in every situation or accent.
> 
> We do not write gonna or wanna unless we are trying to capture speech patterns. That's when these words end up in fictional dialogue, song lyrics, texts, memes, etc.
> 
> It's important to know this for your passive listening or reading skills. But it's not a good idea for an English learner to push forward reducing sounds before mastering them.





Egmont said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to call it a myth, but I probably should have written " 'Gonna' originated as an attempt to reproduce how 'going to' can sound when it is spoken informally, but has become a word in its own right that is appropriate in certain types of informal writing." Can we agree on that?


----------



## JulianStuart

So that type of "informal" writing would also condone oughta, wanna, shoulda, coulda, woulda, gotta etc or does "gonna" have a special status in writing?


----------



## elroy

JulianStuart said:


> So that type of "informal" writing would also condone oughta, wanna, shoulda, coulda, woulda, gotta etc


 Not sure why “informal” is in scare quotes, but absolutely.  I use all of those except “oughta” because I don’t really use “ought” to begin with.  I also use “lemme.”  I don’t personally use “dunno” because I personally don’t like it. 🤷


----------



## owlman5

Poland91pl said:


> Can " Gonna " be used in a formal setting like eg on the news?


I frequently hear people pronounce _going to _this way in news programs. If you were writing a paper for a grade in school, the teacher might very well object to the use of _gonna _rather than _going to _in that paper.


----------



## JulianStuart

elroy said:


> Not sure why “informal” is in scare quotes, but absolutely.  I use all of those except “oughta” behause I don’t really use “ought” to begin with.  I also use “lemme.”  I don’t personally use “dunno” because I personally don’t like it. 🤷


That's fine if you don't like "dunno".  I think others (and probably most teachers - to Owlman's point) feel more strongly about the whole list that they "personally don't like them".  If I saw your writings (but did not know you had written them) and the use of those on the list, I would conclude the writer had learnt English from subtitles.  But that's just me and how I view them.

The quotes were to specify/quote the "certain types of informal" writing specifically mentioned above.


----------



## elroy

JulianStuart said:


> That's fine if you don't like "dunno".


Of course it is.  And it’s fine if you or anyone else doesn’t like “gonna.”  The problem is that people are 1) misrepresenting reality by claiming it’s “only” used in certain situations when it’s clearly not, and 2) issuing excessively strict dictates about when it “should” be used.  In other words, people are turning their preferences into rules. 


JulianStuart said:


> I think others (and probably most teachers - to Owlman's point) feel more strongly about the whole list that they "personally don't like them".


This is clear, and this is part of the problem.

In certain types of writing — a job application, an academic article, a formal letter of complaint, a brochure for a museum, a thesis or dissertation, a business report, and many others — gonna” is clearly not appropriate or advisable.  In many others — an informal text message, a note left on the fridge for your roommate, an e-mail to a friend, your diary, certain types of poetry, a post in an informal online forum, and many others — there is nothing wrong with it, although some may dislike it, just like I dislike “dunno.”


----------



## JulianStuart

elroy said:


> In certain types of writing — a job application, an academic article, a formal letter of complaint, a brochure for a museum, a thesis or dissertation, a business report, and many others — gonna” is *clearly not appropriate or advisable. *


----------



## Roxxxannne

MattiasNYC said:


> As far as I can tell "going to" never sounds like "gonna". It's possible that "gonna" somehow originated from some extremely sloppy pronunciation of "going to" but I never ever hear anyone say it that poorly in real life,


When you say you never hear anyone say 'gonna,' do you mean you never hear it said as though it rhymes with 'pawn a'?  
I say 'gunnuh' when I mean 'going to' practically on a daily basis in real life, and I've always thought it was just a sloppy casual way of saying 'going to.'


----------



## MattiasNYC

Roxxxannne said:


> When you say you never hear anyone say 'gonna,' do you mean you never hear it said as though it rhymes with 'pawn a'?
> I say 'gunnuh' when I mean 'going to' practically on a daily basis in real life, and I've always thought it was just a sloppy casual way of saying 'going to.'



It's getting confusing, and it's probably at least partially my fault.

I'm not saying I don't hear people say "gonna", I hear that plenty. What I mean is that it sounds as if they're saying "gonna" and intend to say what is written "gonna". It never sounds like they're pronouncing "going to" as "gonna".

In my job I've recorded people and edited dialog and it's very often been written down, i.e. written scripts as narration / voiceover for TV shows and advertising. I've never heard "going to" be pronounced "gonna" even in the most casual circumstances. Any time I've heard "gonna" that's what it was intended to be - i.e. more "casual" or "informal".

So from a standpoint solely of phonetics I just don't hear "going to" come out as "gonna". But I do hear people say "gonna".


----------



## elroy

Exactly.  They’re two different things (like “don’t” and “do not”).


----------



## LVRBC

My advice to English learners would be to say gonna and wanna as much as you want to, in informal situations.  Almost everyone possesses the ability to code switch and say "gonna" in a discussion about taking out the garbage and "going to" in giving a presentation about Jane Addams's role in the organization of civic sanitation. However, please don't write it except in quotes as dialogue, for example, in a story.  It usually looks  annoyingly wrong rather than idiomatic in other settings.


----------



## elroy

LVRBC said:


> It usually looks annoyingly wrong rather than idiomatic in other settings.


This is one opinion.  The other is that it looks just fine in many settings (see my last post).


----------



## grassy

elroy said:


> The other is that it looks just fine in many settings (see my last post).


Texting with friends and family and where else ...? For example, I'd be surprised to see _gonna_ in a PM message from you.


----------



## elroy

I gave some examples earlier:


elroy said:


> an informal text message, a note left on the fridge for your roommate, an e-mail to a friend, your diary, certain types of poetry, a post in an informal online forum






grassy said:


> I'd be surprised to see _gonna_ in a PM message from you.


Unfortunately we can’t search PMs  but I’m sure I’ve used it in PMs!


----------



## Keith Bradford

I have little doubt that in a hundred years' time this debate will appear as odd to our successors as the 18th-century objections to "quiz" and "mob" seem to us now.

However, there seem to be a few truths we can all agree with.  I suggest these:

English spelling quite rarely reproduces actual pronunciation, nor has it done for close on a thousand years.
The use of the present continuous of "go" followed by an infinitive is a standard way of expressing the future tense.
Everybody, in at least part of their spoken communications, uses a reduced form of "going to". This may vary from the use of schwa in "to" to the dropping of the final "g", and many other variants, up to and including "gonna".
Nevertheless, we all accept that the correct spelling is "going to".
Therefore anyone of us who uses "gonna" in our written communications is doing one of several things:
Reproducing a casual spoken form for fictional / character purposes,
Or being lazy or rude,
Or demonstrating a deliberate revolt against convention.

Our readers are therefore justified in making a judgment of our character based on what they think our motives are.
Foreign learners should be warned against "gonna" with the above factors in mind.
Howzat?  Good night all.


----------



## elroy

Keith Bradford said:


> I have little doubt that in a hundred years' time this debate will appear as odd to our successors as the 18th-century objections to "quiz" and "mob" seem to us now.


To me, it already does.


Keith Bradford said:


> English spelling quite rarely reproduces actual pronunciation, nor has it done for close on a thousand years.


Agree.


Keith Bradford said:


> The use of the present continuous of "go" followed by an infinitive is a standard way of expressing the future tense.


Agree.


Keith Bradford said:


> Everybody, in at least part of their spoken communications, uses a reduced form of "going to". This may vary from the use of schwa in "to" to the dropping of the final "g", and many other variants, up to and including "gonna".


I guess.


Keith Bradford said:


> Nevertheless, we all accept that the correct spelling is "going to".


The correct spelling of “going to” is “going to.”  This has nothing to do with “gonna,” which is not an “incorrect spelling of ‘going to.’ ”


Keith Bradford said:


> Therefore anyone of us who uses "gonna" in our written communications is doing one of several things:
> 
> Reproducing a casual spoken form for fictional / character purposes,
> Or being lazy or rude,
> Or demonstrating a deliberate revolt against convention.


Emphatically disagree. 
These are the fabricated confines I referred to earlier.  They exist only in the imaginations of staunch opponents of “gonna.” 


Keith Bradford said:


> Our readers are therefore justified in making a judgment of our character based on what they think our motives are.


Everyone makes judgments of our character based on what they think our motives are.
Anyone who concludes that the use of “gonna” is motivated by something other than the users’ actual motivation is, obviously, drawing a wrong conclusion. 


Keith Bradford said:


> Foreign learners should be warned against "gonna" with the above factors in mind.


I would only warn them, as I would a native speaker, about the unreasonable reactions some “gonna” haters might have to their use of “gonna” where it is unquestionably idiomatic, natural, and accepted by everyone other than those haters.  It then comes down to whether you want to appease those haters or express yourself freely.  It’s a choice everyone has to make for themselves.


----------



## dojibear

elroy said:


> the unreasonable reactions some “gonna” haters might have...It then comes down to whether you want to appease those haters or express yourself freely.


If by "express yourself" you mean speak conversational English, then "gonna", "wanna", "cudda", "shudda", "wudda", "gotta" are all fine.

And in "texting" you can use any slang, abbreviations, contractions, or emojis you want.

But a lot of ESL students study English grammar and learn written English. As far as I know, grammars don't explain the rules for using "gonna", and a great many users of written English (website editors, etc.) don't accept "wanna".

In my opinion, it isn't just "haters" that don't consider those normal, fully grammatical written words. ESL learners (who don't know the ins and outs of English) *should *be warned about using them everywhere (including thesis papers). Learning correct written English is not "appeasing haters".



elroy said:


> This has nothing to do with “gonna,” which is not an “incorrect spelling of ‘going to.’


Whattayamean? ("What do you mean?" in written English) As far as I know "gonna" is identical to "going to" in every way. "Gonna" is a spoken form of "going to", to me. What is it to you? A marsupial?

But I am probably missing your point (not understanding your meaning).


----------



## DonnyB

grassy said:


> Texting with friends and family and where else ...? For example, I'd be surprised to see _gonna_ in a PM message from you.


I can tell you for a fact that I've used it in conversation messages with someone I count as a friend, where we've basically just been chatting.   

I wouldn't use in something like a Formal Warning, where as the name implies, a degree of relative formality of style and tone is needed.


----------



## elroy

Yes, you are missing the point.

If you go back and read through this thread carefully, you will see that several members have emphatically said that "gonna" should not be used in writing in any context other than discussing it (as in this thread) or representing speech or dialogue.

In this post, I gave several examples -- six, in fact -- of contexts in which "gonna" would not be appropriate or advisable.  I also gave six examples (the same number, to be fair) of contexts in which there is nothing wrong with it.

I am not saying that English learners should be told to use "gonna" whenever and wherever they'd like.  But they also shouldn't be told to avoid it at all costs.  They should be told how and when "gonna" is actually used by native speakers, and they should be told what the possible ramifications of using it are.  It might go something like this:

_In formal contexts, you should use "going to."  In informal contexts, you can use "gonna" (may native speakers do), but you should know that some people are against the use of "gonna" even in informal contexts and may misjudge you as uneducated even if you use it in an informal text message.  It's up to you whether you want to avoid it completely to avoid being misjudged this way, or if you want to use it, like many native speakers do, even at the risk of being misjudged._​
I give learners of English more credit than some people seem to.  Just because they are learning English as a second language doesn't mean they're unable to grasp the distinction between formal and informal contexts and accordingly make wise choices about language use.  I am very much against the idea that language learners should not be taught informal forms that would reflect poorly on them in formal settings, because -- OMG -- _they may end up inadvertently using them in a formal context because they don't know any better_!  I find that attitude patronizing.  A good language instructor can effectively explain the difference and provide exercises to help the students internalize it.  I'm not necessarily saying "gonna" should be taught to those who are still in their very early stages of language learning, but that applies to anything else you might want to teach them: you should always consider _when_ to present different material.  What I am against is the idea that English learners should _never_ be taught these forms.


dojibear said:


> As far as I know "gonna" is identical to "going to" in every way.


Actually, it's not.

Two examples:

1.) "going to" can be used in constructions other than the future "going to" construction, whereas "gonna" cannot:

_I am going to the park. 
I am gonna the park. _

2.) In some constructions, "going to" doesn't work:

_Ain't nobody gonna tell me I can't do that. 
Ain't nobody going to tell me I can't do that. _


dojibear said:


> "Gonna" is a spoken form of "going to", to me.


See above.  Also:

For me, the two are distinct in both speech and writing.  In both speech and writing, I don't only use one or the other; I use both, and they don't have the same effect.  It's similar to "don't" and "do not," an example I gave earlier.


----------



## DonnyB

Moderator note

As you can see, the use of "gonna" in English attracts its fair share of controversy, as indeed it's fair to say it always has in our forum.  However can I please ask that we ensure that posts avoid unnecessary or excessive speculation on motives and attitudes, and adhere to the principles of courtesy and respect for differing points of view.

Thank you for your co-operation!   DonnyB - moderator.


----------



## ewie

I for one never ever write _gonna_: I write (rarely) _gunna_, which I say about 37 times a day


----------



## Keith Bradford

You're right, Ewie.  My post #40 should have read:

Everybody, in at least part of their spoken communications, uses a reduced form of "going to". This may vary from the use of schwa in "to" to the dropping of the final "g", and many other variants, but curiously not very often including "gonna". _Gunna, gowina, gownta_... would often be more accurate phonetically.


----------



## DonnyB

dojibear said:


> But a lot of ESL students study English grammar and learn written English. As far as I know, grammars don't explain the rules for using "gonna", and a great many users of written English (website editors, etc.) don't accept "wanna".
> 
> In my opinion, it isn't just "haters" that don't consider those normal, fully grammatical written words. ESL learners (who don't know the ins and outs of English) *should *be warned about using them everywhere (including thesis papers). Learning correct written English is not "appeasing haters".


I think it's fair to say that grammar textbooks as a rule don't go into a lot of detail as far as explaining the usage of informal or colloquial expressions is concerned, be they "gonna" or anything else.  A good ESL teacher will be able to use different contemporary sources - both spoken and written - to illustrate patterns of usage by a variety of native speakers and a bright student will soon be able to pick up enough of the nuances to be able to use them correctly according to the context.



Keith Bradford said:


> ... but curiously not very often including "gonna". _Gunna, gowina, gownta_... would often be more accurate phonetically.


At the risk of going over old ground, that actually strongly suggests to me that "gonna" _isn't_ in fact a spoken contraction of "going to". I daresay it may have started off life as one, but "gowina" and "gownta" are much more plausible as phonetic transcriptions of fast speech - although I've never seen either in writing anywhere.


----------

