# Ya wanna learn (yourself) about ya wanna?



## cheshire

(1) A: Who do you *want to* [*wanna*] see?
     B: I *want to* [*wanna*] see Mary.

(2) A: Who do you *want to* win?
     B: I *want *Jane *to* win.

I read that "want to" in (2) can't be reduced to "wanna." Is it really true?


----------



## gaer

cheshire said:


> (1) A: Who do you *want to* [*wanna*] see?
> B: I *want to* [*wanna*] see Mary.
> 
> (2) A: Who do you *want to* win?
> B: I *want *Jane *to* win.
> 
> I read that "want to" in (2) can't be reduced to "wanna." Is it really true?


"Wanna" is avoided by almost all people who write except when used in dialogue. Then it is used to show how people talk.

"I don't wanna do it,", he said.

"Wanna" and other forms like that are used in chat. We don't use them here.

But you questions seems to be about what happens when "what" is split" from "to". So I'm a bit confused.

Gaer


----------



## Snowman75

cheshire, what you've said is correct.

You can only reduce "want to" to "wanna" if the subject of the verb "want" and the subject of the verb following "want to" is the same.

So, in the first example, the subject of "want" is "you", and the subject of "see" is "you". Same subjects, can reduce to "wanna".

In the second example, the subject of "want" is "you" but the subject of "win" is "who". Different subjects, can't use "wanna".

Note, though, as gaer mentioned, you would almost never write "wanna" - it's purely a spoken phenomenon.


----------



## gaer

Snowman75 said:


> cheshire, what you've said is correct.
> 
> You can only reduce "want to" to "wanna" if the subject of the verb "want" and the subject of the verb following "want to" is the same.
> 
> So, in the first example, the subject of "want" is "you", and the subject of "see" is "you". Same subjects, can reduce to "wanna".
> 
> In the second example, the subject of "want" is "you" but the subject of "win" is "who". Different subjects, can't use "wanna".
> 
> Note, though, as gaer mentioned, you would almost never write "wanna" - it's purely a spoken phenomenon.


Right, and in the second sentence, in dialague, it could be written:

"I wanna see Jane win," he said.

There are really not totally set rules about what is correct or incorrect when representing how people speak, but there are standard patterns used by most writers.

This, for instance, is why "gonna" shows up more than "gunna", but both are possible.

"I don't know what I'm gonna do," he said.
"I don't know what I'm gunna do," he said.

The second is much more unusual but is used sometimes to show a slight difference in regional pronunciation.

Gaer


----------



## cheshire

Thanks love!


----------



## panjandrum

So there are RULES for when it is OK to use wanna.


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> So there are RULES for when it is OK to use wanna.


Only in dialogue, and they are very, very loose.

I've noticed the same thing in books from the UK.

Think only of: 

"Here we jolly well go, gov'na," something my dad always said when we started on a trip. 

Gaer


----------



## Snowman75

panjandrum said:


> So there are RULES for when it is OK to use wanna.


 Well, for non-native speakers it's a rule. For native speakers, of course, like most rules, it is just a way of _describing_ the way we actually speak.

And the rule does exist, even if most native speakers don't realise it. If you were to ask a native English speaker the following question:

"Who do you wanna win?"

He will likely interpret it the same way as "What do you wanna win?". In other words, he will be expecting to win a person as a prize. Of course, in context, the intended meaning will be understood, but it will sound strange.


----------



## panjandrum

It seems to me that the concept of rules for wanna, gonna etc, is on the same high plane of homour as:
*Anarchy Rules, OK!*


----------



## Brioche

Snowman75 said:


> "Who do you wanna win?"


 
The person who says "wanna" is likely to truncate the "who do you", too.

_Who'dja wanna win?_


----------



## cheshire

Interseting!
Panjandrum, why so?


----------



## foxfirebrand

panjandrum said:
			
		

> So there are RULES for when it is OK to use wanna.


It's the handwriting on the wall, Panj!

When I saw the guidelines of "wanna" set down, I mostly agreed with them, and had a similar epiphany as you, though I regarded it more with bemusement than dismay.

Rules betoken an acceptance of sort, don't they. 

That said, I don't agree that "who'dja wanna win" means anything but a question about the outcome of the game. Unless it's a claiming race!  In that case I wanna win the bay.  The bobtail nag looks kinda lame.
.


----------



## gaer

foxfirebrand said:


> That said, I don't agree that "who'dja wanna win" means anything but a question about the outcome of the game. Unless it's a claiming race! In that case I wanna win the bay. The bobtail nag looks kinda lame.
> .



It's really easy to "over-think" the way we speak.

At best ways of describing speech with such inventions as "wanna", "gonna", etc. are only going to get close to the way people actually talk.

I do think that certain ways of representing dialogue are more common than others, but you certainly won't find them in any book. I suspect authors pick up certain patterns from other authors, and over time we begin to accept certain inventions as standard in dialogue.

Beyond that, I think it's pretty much "anything goes".

Gaer


----------



## padredeocho

Both of these are FINE, *if* you are talking to a FRIEND or a child. *ONLY A* would be FINE if you were talking formally.
A: Who do you *want to *see win? (Technically, WHO here should be WHOM, but who gives a flip?)
B: I *wanna* see Mary win.

Both of these are FINE, too, if you are speaking informally. If you are speaking formally, stick with A (and if you want to impress the weird grammarians of the world, use WHOM, because it is an object, not a subject pronoun).
A: Who do you *want to* win? (Again, technically, should be WHOM)
B: Who d'ya wanna see win?


----------



## padredeocho

Here is how many Americans say HAVE YOU EATEN?

Jeet.  (In other words, *Did you eat* becomes *Did'ya eat*, then to* ja eet*, then to *jeet*.  Now, we Americans deny things like this, but that only because we don't want to look uneducated to our Cockney-speaking friends in London.


----------



## foxfirebrand

padredeocho said:
			
		

> Here is how many Americans say HAVE YOU EATEN?


What does _jeet_ have to do with _have yetyet?_  And by the way, I've heard those toffy-nosed swells across the pond say "et" too, in case you're oh-deeing on lah-di-dah envy.
.


----------



## panjandrum

cheshire said:


> Interesting!
> Panjandrum, why so?


I find it strange that there are now rules for the use of wanna, which is in itself a breach of the rules of English.
As FFB said, "It's the handwriting on the wall."

Hey, I'm gonna be a wanna rebel.
Who do you wanna win?
I wanna see Jane win.

Perfectly acceptable in wannaworld.


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> I find it strange that there are now rules for the use of wanna, which is in itself a breach of the rules of English.
> As FFB said, "It's the handwriting on the wall."
> 
> Hey, I'm gonna be a wanna rebel.
> Who do you wanna win?
> I wanna see Jane win.
> 
> Perfectly acceptable in wannaworld.


I'm really not clear about where this discussion is heading. When you talk about "a breach of the rules of English", what do you mean?

I don't see that "words" such as "wanna" or "gonna" have anything to do with rules. They reflect the way people speak, and they also reflect what happens when people speak quickly. I try very hard to avoid "sloppy" speech. I have to teach small children and people who do not speak English as their first language. In addition, I teach music, which has a specialized vocabulary, so I have to be especially clear about how I explain things.

But I know without any doubt that I say "wanna" and "gonna" from time to time. Does that put me in "wannaworld too"?

I think the tone of this discussion is becoming incredibly condescending and arrogant.

Gaer


----------



## modus.irrealis

cheshire said:


> I read that "want to" in (2) can't be reduced to "wanna." Is it really true?



This is tough for me to answer since I can convince myself of anything right now. For me, part of the problem is I generally drop t's after n's anyway (e.g. in "twenty" or "winter") in casual speech, so I probably still say "wanna" (although this isn't the best possible representation of what I say), but saying the t sounds very natural in (2) while it sounds more awkward in (1). I'm thinking that maybe the two "wanna"s are different, but I can't observe myself speaking casually. It's a really interesting point though.



panjandrum said:


> I find it strange that there are now rules for the use of wanna, which is in itself a breach of the rules of English.



Part of the problem here is the double meaning of rules. One meaning is, like gaer and Snowman75 said, to describe the way people actually speak, since our use of our language is rule-based even if we're not consciously aware of them. The other meaning refers to the rules that tell what is "correct" English, although in the end they're just the rules that describe the way our linguistic "betters" speak/spoke.

I'll add my question about "want to" and "wanna" here too because I was always under the impression that all North American speakers said some version of "wanna" in normal speech (other varieties of English seem to do different things to their t's). Does any North American pronounce a t in "want to" a sentence like "I want to go" unless they're trying to speak very formally?


----------



## padredeocho

Many English students who study Spanish and other languages, forget that we have a second person familiar, just like Spanish does with tú.

To want
*You want* a good career, and I undestand that, but acting is not the answer.
*Ya wanna* a good career, and I undestand that, but acting is not the answer.

This form has become so commonly used, that it really should be taught to anybody learning English.  My students use this form more than the first form I gave.


----------



## Kelly B

I do not speak Spanish, so I do not know the level of familiarity of the Spanish _tù_. However, if it is comparable to the French _tu, _then I absolutely disagree.

Ya wanna is certainly not comparable in formality or level to the French _tu, _which is perfectly acceptable in writing, and which does not result in a low estimation of your education. _Ya wanna_ looks, in my opinion, absolutely dreadful, although I think it is fine in very casual speech.


----------



## JamesM

Your students say, "*Ya wanna* a good career", with the second "a" in there?  Or was that a typo?  With the second "a", it sounds like a thick Italian accent in English.

I don't think that "you want a" and "ya wanna" are different conjugations at all.  One is simply more casual-sounding because the consonants are slurred.


----------



## padredeocho

Ya wanna may look dreadful, but let's face it, it is in all the sitcoms, and virtually every novel these days.


----------



## padredeocho

JamesM said:


> Your students say, "*Ya wanna* a good career", with the second "a" in there? Or was that a typo? With the second "a", it sounds like a thick Italian accent in English.
> 
> I don't think that "you want a" and "ya wanna" are different conjugations at all. One is simply more casual-sounding because the consonants are slurred.


 
They would drop the "a" and just say, Ya wanna good career.  I can't imaging them saying, Ya wanna a good career.   The second a defeats the purpose of the slur.


----------



## Kelly B

It is most certainly not written in any of the novels I read, and most of them were recently released. It is a relaxed style of speech, not an alternate conjugation.


----------



## Victoria32

Brioche said:


> The person who says "wanna" is likely to truncate the "who do you", too.
> 
> _Who'dja wanna win?_


In ESOL teaching we were encouraged to teach our students '_Who'dja wanna win?' _on the grounds that that is what they were mostly likely to hear, and so they could pass for native New Zealanders, bizarre as most of them were Chinese and intending to return there!


----------



## padredeocho

Not in any of the novel you read?  Which ones?  That's about all I see in dialogue these days.


----------



## padredeocho

Victoria32 said:


> In ESOL teaching we were encouraged to teach our students '_Who'dja wanna win?' _on the grounds that that is what they were mostly likely to hear, and so they could pass for native New Zealanders, bizarre as most of them were Chinese and intending to return there!


 
Yes, I totally agree!  And I think it hurts those learning English not to be taught this.   
They are taught "Do you want to eat?"
and they hear "D'ya wanna eat?"

To deny this is like denying the sun in the sky.


----------



## JamesM

Can you give a few published examples?  Maybe it's written this way in teen novels, but I find it hard to imagine it being common for a character in a novel, unless the author was doing it purposely as part of the characterization.


----------



## Kevman

To me, *you want a* and *ya wanna* are just different orthographical representations of the same thing. The latter conveys a little bit more dialectal flavor. There is no difference in the formality of the pronoun.

I don't make any sort of distinction such as calling friends *ya* and strangers *you*.


----------



## gaer

padredeocho said:


> Yes, I totally agree! And I think it hurts those learning English not to be taught this.
> They are taught "Do you want to eat?"
> and they hear "D'ya wanna eat?"
> 
> To deny this is like denying the sun in the sky.


I think it is a matter of survival to learn to understand the way people speak. I love to hear people speak clearly and carefully in any language, and I especially appreciate it in German or Spanish, but if you can only understand someone who speaks clearly, you are left out of most conversations.

However, I don't think there is anything wrong with this?

Native speaker: "D'ya wanna eat?"
Person learning: "Yes, I do want to eat. What do you want?/Where do you want to go?"

I think it's always best for a person learning a language to use the correct forms, at least for a long time, because often when people learning attempt to mimic the speach patterns of natives, the result is not cool but embarrassing. Not always, but sometimes. 

Gaer


----------



## Victoria32

padredeocho said:


> Yes, I totally agree!  And I think it hurts those learning English not to be taught this.
> They are taught "Do you want to eat?"
> and they hear "D'ya wanna eat?"
> 
> To deny this is like denying the sun in the sky.


I would have been happier about it, if they had been (my students) intending to stay in an English speaking country, but most were getting an English qualification so they would better job prospects in China or Korea. For immigrants, yes, you have a point... 

That being said, I was hired as a tutor by my Italian student because I _sound_ British, and having lived in the UK, that is the sound he wanted - although I was conspicuously unsuccessful in instilling it in him, as he was a lazy beggar... I also speak very precisely, you will never catch me saying 'do you wanna' unless I am singing (loudly and tunelessly)  a song by Franz Ferdinand! (Scots by the way.)


----------



## padredeocho

Wanna bet we all use wanna more than we wanna admit?


----------



## gaer

modus.irrealis said:


> I'll add my question about "want to" and "wanna" here too because I was always under the impression that all North American speakers said some version of "wanna" in normal speech (other varieties of English seem to do different things to their t's). Does any North American pronounce a t in "want to" a sentence like "I want to go" unless they're trying to speak very formally?


It's not a matter of formality. It's a matter of clarity. When I say "want to", I'm not being formal. I'm speaking more slowly and more carefully.

There are clear differences in the way speech is contracted in BE and AE, and even that is a gross simplification.

Here is one example I've noticed from careful listening.

"I don't like that at all."

AE: a'DALL
BE: d'TOLE

In this case the "t" is clearly articulated in BE. I don't think you can make a blanket statement, but in general I think "t" is pronounced much more consistently in BE.

Gaer


----------



## padredeocho

Well, us North Americans are less formal. Not only in English, but in Spanish, too. Americans typically say something like this, "Are ya gunna go?" We all know that Are you going to go? is the preferred way to say it, but we often say it the first way. In fact, it may be the norm. The Mexicans, also North Americans, say pa'ca for para aca, meaning right here. The mother tongues are just too long-winded for us simple folks across the pond.


----------



## cheshire

*(3) Do you expect all of the books you want to be available in the library?* 
I also read that "want to" in (3) can't be shortened to "wanna." Is it true?

(4) Who do you *want to* succeed?
(x) If the sentence is about whom "you" wants to take over, "want to" can be shortened to "wanna." 
(y) If the sentence is about who it is that "you" wants to be successful, it can't be shortened to "wanna."
Is it really true?


----------



## gaer

cheshire said:


> *(3) Do you expect all of the books you want to be available in the library?*
> I also read that "want to" in (3) can't be shortened to "wanna." Is it true?
> 
> (4) Who do you *want to* succeed?
> (x) If the sentence is about whom "you" wants to take over, "want to" can be shortened to "wanna."
> (y) If the sentence is about who it is that "you" wants to be successful, it can't be shortened to "wanna."
> Is it really true?


(3) I'm almost positive I would say "want to" because I would also make a slight break after want…
(4) I would say "want to succeed".

But I am very reluctant to use rules to analyze what is happening, because I fear it would get far too complicated. In the end, native speakers pronounce things as they do for no other reason than habit, and there are SO many factors.

I would recommend that if you need rules to figure out how to use "wanna" in an idiomatic way, you would be far better off sticking to "want to". That is why I suggested that it is necessary to understand speech contractions or informal usage, but it is not necessary to use them.

Gaer


----------



## panjandrum

Can we just be clear that for those who wish to learn normally acceptable English, and who wish to pass exams in English, this usage is wrong.
In the UK, ya wanna will also mark the speaker as a careless, and probably uneducated, speaker.

It is also considered wrong in these forums.


----------



## modus.irrealis

gaer said:


> It's not a matter of formality. It's a matter of clarity. When I say "want to", I'm not being formal. I'm speaking more slowly and more carefully.



I think I worded my question badly, but you still answered what I should have asked. It still sounds less natural if I say "want to" with a t sound, but now I think I should pay more attention to the speech around me, to see if I'm just ignoring the t's that are there. I'm not sure what you mean by clarity, though. How is the "wanna" pronunciation less clear?

I've never really understood this issue, since I pronounce "want to" as "wanna" anyway, especially in say a novel's dialogues (wheneve an author uses "wanna," it seems to me to just be a cheap way to make me think less of a character because the spelling is wrong). It's not like the rest of English spelling adequately represents how the language is pronounced. 



> In this case the "t" is clearly articulated in BE. I don't think you can make a blanket statement, but in general I think "t" is pronounced much more consistently in BE.


That's generally been my impression as well, but you're right about making generalizations.


----------



## panjandrum

gaer said:


> [...]I would recommend that if you need rules to figure out how to use "wanna" in an idiomatic way, you would be far better off sticking to "want to". That is why I suggested that it is necessary to understand speech contractions or informal usage, but it is not necessary to use them.


Different parts of the world, different parts of the country, will abbreviate and truncate in pronunciation in different ways.
An attempt to describe this once for all is not going to succeed.
On the other hand, all of these forms are relaxed versions of the standard forms of English speech and pronunciation that most of us recognise.


----------



## KoOl_AuSsIe

yes that is right! It can't be shortened to wanna, only when want & to are together you can shorten it


----------



## panjandrum

Dyoo wanna banana?


----------



## foxfirebrand

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Dyoo wanna banana?


I'm not a froot kinda guy-- you're the orang-man, after all.  But I'll take a juicy young vole if you've got one on the hoof.  Nothin canned or frozen.
.


----------



## DavyBCN

padredeocho said:


> Ya wanna may look dreadful, but let's face it, it is in all the sitcoms, and virtually every novel these days.


 
I don't disagree that it should be explained in the same way as _gonna_ and _ain't_, but as common day-to-day speech for some native English speakers. _Gonna_ is becoming more and more common for BE speakers but _ya_ _wanna_ is definitely something which hasn't crossed the Atlantic to the same extent - yet. As for it being an informal second person - absolutely not. Is _ya'all_ going to become an informal second person plural? I cannot remember ya wanna in any novels except as part of a dialogue, and dialogue can contain all sorts of regional day-to-day expressions. Can we leave it in the sitcoms please.


----------



## Sallyb36

Please don't teach them wrong English, it's not fair.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Kelly B said:


> I do not speak Spanish, so I do not know the level of familiarity of the Spanish _tù_. However, if it is comparable to the French _tu, _then I absolutely disagree.
> 
> Ya wanna is certainly not comparable in formality or level to the French _tu, _which is perfectly acceptable in writing, and which does not result in a low estimation of your education. _Ya wanna_ looks, in my opinion, absolutely dreadful, although I think it is fine in very casual speech.



We have the form *tu* in Italian, that is the usual way to address friends or relatives and it's perfectly acceptable in writing as well as the French _tu_. It's not a slang or a sign of bad English like "ya wanna", but just a speaking informal register .


----------



## theoriphobe

The original premiss is wrong. We don't have a second person familiar in English, except in the archaic 'thou' and 'thee'. 'Ya wanna' is just a diminutive, and nothing at all to do with the familiar.


----------



## panjandrum

There are, I suppose, two fundamental ways to learn the vernacular language of any particular place or cultural group.
The first is to be born into it.
The second is to learn the learn the base language from which it derives and to discover - best by observation - how that base language is relaxed into the vernacular.

If yous wants to learn yourselves my vernacular, yous should of went to my school. (Spelling standardised )


----------



## timpeac

padredeocho said:


> Many English students who study Spanish and other languages, forget that we have a second person familiar, just like Spanish does with tú.
> 
> To want
> *You want* a good career, and I undestand that, but acting is not the answer.
> *Ya wanna* a good career, and I undestand that, but acting is not the answer.
> 
> This form has become so commonly used, that it really should be taught to anybody learning English. My students use this form more than the first form I gave.


I am not sure if you are saying that "ya" is a familiar person or if you are saying that only the verb "want" has one in "ya wanna".

If you are saying that "ya" is anywhere near comparable to the Latin languages "tu" then I disagree. In any English sentence an unstressed vowel is likely to become a schwa. If you have the paradigm "you" + verb and the stress of the sentence falls on the verb then the "you" will be relatively unstressed and the vowel will become the schwa, or at least tend towards it, which is represented by "ya". This would happen in the speech from the Queen to the primeminster to president to window cleaner to car salesman.

If you are saying that "wanna" is familiar, then I'd agree with that. It is representative of a relaxed style of speech, and would be unlikely to do you favours in a job interview for example. But this has nothing to do with being a verb form. In relaxed speech, and particularly American speech (or so I thought) you often swallow the "t" in a "nt" combination - innernet, innernational etc. One of those words is a noun the other an adjective, so the phenomenon is familiar, yes, a special verb form? No.

If you wanted to claim that we are seeing the emergence of a plural verb form in "y'all" or "youse" then I'd agree with that, though.


----------



## choylarn

'You wanna' in my opinion is just a lazy slack slang way of talking and sounds uneducated and careless... I hate it!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

padredeocho said:


> This form has become so commonly used, that it really should be taught to anybody learning English.  My students use this form more than the first form I gave.



Children would live on chips with ketchup if they could, does it mean that they should be allowed to do it?


----------



## maxiogee

I wanna blame the Jungle Book's vultures!


----------



## choylarn

Yes I know it's commonly used these days, it's the style of speech you see used in music videos featuring black american rap singers and the like... and in mainly American sitcoms, I cringe whenever I hear it.... you wanna... you gonna... please don't teach your students to talk like this, it downgrades them


----------



## Snowman75

cheshire said:


> *(3) Do you expect all of the books you want to be available in the library?*
> I also read that "want to" in (3) can't be shortened to "wanna." Is it true?
> 
> (4) Who do you *want to* succeed?
> (x) If the sentence is about whom "you" wants to take over, "want to" can be shortened to "wanna."
> (y) If the sentence is about who it is that "you" wants to be successful, it can't be shortened to "wanna."
> Is it really true?


Yes, that's correct in both cases. My earlier post explains why.

In your examples:

(3) = "... the *books* to be available that *you* want ... "
(4x) = "*you* want that *you* succeed who" *
(4y) = "*you* want that *who* succeeds" *

You can see that in (4x) the two verbs have the _same _subject (*"you"*), but in (3) and (4y) the two verbs have _different_ subjects.

* Of course these are ungrammatical constructions just being used for illustration.


----------



## mjs

padredeocho said:


> Many English students who study Spanish and other languages, forget that we have a second person familiar, just like Spanish does with tú.
> 
> To want
> *You want* a good career, and I undestand that, but acting is not the answer.
> *Ya wanna* a good career, and I undestand that, but acting is not the answer.
> 
> This form has become so commonly used, that it really should be taught to anybody learning English. My students use this form more than the first form I gave.



There's a minor mistake in there that might confuse people. It should be:

*You want a *good career
*Ya wanna* good career (without the extra "a")

And I think there's a MUCH simpler way to make the point everyone's trying at:  _This is simply a way that english speakers casually "slur" their speech_.

So, you _cannot _use "*wanna*" in:

I *want *Mary *to *win.

simply because "wanna" is a lazy way to say "want to", and those two words aren't next to each other in that sentence.

Also note that I'm only using "lazy" to help make my point, I don't mean that people who do it are lazy people. Most of us do it when speaking informally.


----------



## padredeocho

panjandrum said:


> Can we just be clear that for those who wish to learn normally acceptable English, and who wish to pass exams in English, this usage is wrong.
> In the UK, ya wanna will also mark the speaker as a careless, and probably uneducated, speaker.
> 
> It is also considered wrong in these forums.


 
Considered wrong in these forums by whom?  By those who want to speak like English teachers, or by those who want to casually converse with natives?   I agree that such usage would get you an F on an English exam.  However, if you were a guest in my home, and said, "*Ya wanna see a movie with me?*"  I wouldn't think twice about saying, "*you betcha*" so long as you were treating!


----------



## timpeac

padredeocho said:


> Considered wrong in these forums by whom? By those who want to speak like English teachers, or by those who want to casually converse with natives? I agree that such usage would get you an F on an English exam. However, if you were a guest in my home, and said, "*Ya wanna see a movie with me?*" I wouldn't think twice about saying, "*you betcha*" so long as you were treating!


By the management of these forums. We can discuss any English usage, including swear words or grammar not considered standard, but we do it in standard language. In other words we can discuss the nuances of "bastard" but we can't call someone one directly and we can discuss the nuances of "wanna" but we can't use it in a sentence in its own right as I "I wanna know".


----------



## heidita

Paulfromitaly said:


> We have the form *tu* in Italian, that is the usual way to address friends or relatives and it's perfectly acceptable in writing as well as the French _tu_. It's not a slang or a sign of bad English like "ya wanna", but just a speaking informal register .


Exactly the same in Spanish. I am still thinking after reading throught he whole thread what padreocho wanted to say.


----------



## LV4-26

Excuse me, I thought I could have my say here.

The way you *speak*, the way you pronounce words is something and I won't go into that.
But the way you *write* is something else.
And unless you want to describe someone's specific accent, I don't see why you should write _wanna_ or _gonna._
To me _wanna_, _gonna_, _gunna_, _gimme_, _dunno_, etc.. is not what I would call written language. I'd rather call it...phonetics.


----------



## gaer

timpeac said:


> By the management of these forums. We can discuss any English usage, including swear words or grammar not considered standard, but we do it in standard language. In other words we can discuss the nuances of "bastard" but we can't call someone one directly and we can discuss the nuances of "wanna" but we can't use it in a sentence in its own right as I "I wanna know".


Tim, I agree with you, which is not unusual since I usually do.

This is why I have tried to show the use of "wanna", "gonna" and "ya" in this way.

"Whatcha (what ya) gonna do next?" he asked.

This makes it clear that such spellings are used in dialogue to show how people speak.

Because I have now been made hyper-aware of my own way of speaking, I caught myself saying "gonna" all day, hundreds of times, and I heard all my students using it too.

"Okay, what are ya gonna play next?"
"Next week we're gonna get the hands together."
"Now, what ya wanna do here is to bring out the RH, because it has the melody."

But I also found myself switching to this, whenever I talked to someone who was new, or someone who is not fluent:

"Okay, what are you going to play next?"
"Next week we're going to get the hands together."
"Now, what you want to do here is to bring out the RH, because it has the melody."

Notice that I have put all these sentences in quotes, to make it plain that I am talking about speech patterns, not spelling. I NEVER use these spellings when I am writing, not even informally. I see no reason to.

But I want to make one point. I don't like seeing words such as "ignorant" or "uneducated" aimed at those of us in the US because of the way we speak when we are relaxed and in informal situations, and I have seen such words here and there. This is what I think is intollerant and argumentative, and I also think it shows that people who live in countries other than the US don't understand the way most of us talk. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

LV4-26 said:


> Excuse me, I thought I could have my say here.
> 
> The way you *speak*, the way you pronounce words is something and I won't go into that.
> But the way you *write* is something else.
> And unless you want to describe someone's specific accent, I don't see why you should write _wanna_ or _gonna._
> To me _wanna_, _gonna_, _gunna_, _gimme_, _dunno_, etc.. is not what I would call written language. I'd rather call it...phonetics.


But again, it IS written language because it is written. Period. I don't mean to be argumentative, but novels could not be written without these written forms, showing how people speak. I agree that these written forms are properly meant to represent speech. Perhaps we could agree to call them "descrptive written forms used in dialogues". Or choose any term you like.

By the way, I don't object at all to call these forms, as they appear in dialogue, "phonetic spellings representing speech". I don't really disagree with you, but I do think we have to be more careful about defining what we are talking about.

Gaer


----------



## padredeocho

I agree with Gaer.  It was a nice sense of reality.  

I teach school, too, and I don't think of any of the teachers who talk like that are lazy, or uneducated.  It is just casual speech.   We all get dressed up for church, and none of us would wear our church clothing to a swimming pool.   The same is true with language.   What is right depends entirely on your audience.


----------



## LV4-26

gaer said:


> But again, it IS written language because it is written. Period. I don't mean to be argumentative, but novels could not be written without these written forms, showing how people speak. Absolutely. I agree that these written forms are properly meant to represent speech. Perhaps we could agree to call them "descrptive written forms used in dialogues". Or choose any term you like.
> 
> By the way, I don't object at all to call these forms, as they appear in dialogue, "phonetic spellings representing speech". I don't really disagree with you, but I do think we have to be more careful about defining what we are talking about.


I have absolutely nothing to object to that. 
It seems you only differ with me about my use of "written language". I acknowledge it was not the proper word to use. It was just meant to be opposed to "phonetics".

An example to illustrate what I mean. I don't expect, say, a Scouser to *seriously* (many natives here use "phonetical" forms for a joke) write
_I was riding on a boos, yesterday, _or _this is roobish - _on these forums_. _They never do.
(Absolutely no offense meant to Scousers. As a Beatles fan, you can't expect me to dislike this accent )

But then, people write how they like. It does absolutely no harm to me and I would hate to sound patronizing, especially in a foreign language. I just mean to explain why I, especially as a non native, would never dream of using those forms here, except when quoting a dialog...or just for fun with lots of  and  to go with.

This is the longest "I-agree" post I've ever seen.


----------



## LV4-26

And yes, I think you can say there are "rules", so to say,  governing the use of these forms*

*The word "rule" is probably inappropriate when dealing with a descriptive grammar. The difference is that the opposition correct/incorrect would be replaced by likely/unlikely to be heard.

The fact is that, in the sentence : 
*



			Do you expect all of the books you want to be available in the library?
		
Click to expand...

 *one would hardly ever use the form _wanna_ and that there's a logical reason to it, as was explained before. We're not very far from the actual definition of a "rule", are we?*
*


----------



## gaer

LV4-26 said:


> I have absolutely nothing to object to that.
> It seems you only differ with me about my use of "written language".


Actually, I don't really differ with you. I think we are talking about something that is very difficult to "label".

I think we have been talking about two different things.

1) Using text to represent speech. (This is why I have repeatedly talked about "dialogue".) At best, any way of representing the way people speak using writing/text is an extremely poor approximation of the real thing, but it is all we have. If the style of speech being represented is one with which you are familiar, it probably works by suggesting something we already know.

2) Using "words" such as "gonna", "wanna", "ya", etc. in place of the words they represent in standard communication.

The first I think is not only correct but also absolutely necessary. It's not new. Just read _Huckleberry Finn_ or _Oliver Twist_. If you changed all the words of characters in these books to standard English, it would ruin the books.

The second is what I think most of us object to, and I don't like it either, at least in a forum like this. I think it has no place and is highly misleading to those who are learning English.


> An example to illustrate what I mean. I don't expect, say, a Scouser to *seriously* (many natives here use "phonetical" forms for a joke) write
> _I was riding on a boos, yesterday, _or _this is roobish - _on these forums_. _They never do.


But you might use forms like those if you copied a quote by one of the Beatles. Then you would be writing dialogue, representing the way someone speaks or spoke, and then I think it would be 100% appropriate.


> I just mean to explain why I, especially as a non native, would never dream of using those forms here, except when quoting a dialog...or just for fun with lots of  and  to go with.


I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. I don't think this discussion has ever been about using these "dialogue forms" here in this 
forum unless we are trying to discover how people in different parts of the world speak. 

Gaer


----------



## LV4-26

gaer said:


> But you might use forms like those if you copied a quote by one of the Beatles. Then you would be writing dialogue, representing the way someone speaks or spoke, and then I think it would be 100% appropriate.


Granted. I should have made it clear I didn't mean those sentence to be written as part of a dialogue or as sample sentences (in which case, as you say, they would be perfectly appropriate). I was imagining forer@s speaking in their own name and spelling words that way. (as an anecdote meant to illustrate a topic in a cultural thread about buses / collective transportation, for instance).
It may always sound a bit tedious to give people to understand that you understood what they understood you understood, etc...but it doesn't harm, and the clearer the better.


----------

