Hello,
(My first time venturing onto the list.)
As I read your comments on "am going to," I recalled listening to a 
song my daughter had on the radio by the Black Eyed Peas. It's  a 
great example of the evolution of language:  (Imma Be = I am going to 
be)

Black Eyed Peas: Imma Be Lyrics
  
Imma be on the next level
Imma be rockin' over that bass treble
Imma be chillin' with my mutha mutha crew
Imma be makin' all them deals you wanna do

Imma be up in them A-list flicks
Doin' one-handed flips, and Imma be sippin' on drinks
'Cause Imma be shakin' my hips
You gon' be lickin' your lips

etc., etc.

Best,
Kathy


On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:02:16 -0400
  Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Herb,
>    I find this sort of lens very interesting, very useful. It gives 
>us a view of language as very dynamic, very much emergent, and what 
>we are dealing with is more PATTERN than rule. Frequency is, in fact, 
>one of the most important mechanisms for change. Elements that chunck 
>lose analysability. "Am going to," for example, becomes a single 
>construction in its more grammatical uses.
>   Bybee seems to be saying in her fine book that some of these 
>patterns of change are the same across languages, which would seem to 
>imply at least mild (or tentative) predictability. This would be, not 
>because the grammar is innate, but because the domain general 
>processes are the same across the human family. Commonly, 
>constructions meaning "movement toward goal" take on meanings of 
>intention and then prediction. This is partly, as Bybee sees it, 
> because of a mechanism by which the inferential meaning in a context 
>becomes part of the expressed meaning over time. Verbs of "knowing" 
>become expressions of "ability" (as has happened with "can). Having 
>power ("maeg") infers permission. And so on.
>    We also have functional pressure as well. All these elements in 
>question are what Langacker would call "grounding elements." What we 
>want to know of an event is whether or not it happens, is happening, 
>has happened, will happen, is over with, sometimes in relation to 
>other events. We make predictions about things that haven't happened 
>yet and want to hedge our degree of certainty (could, might, will). 
>We hedge certainty about present and past realities as well. We also 
>want to be able to add "deontic" ("root") (social context) meanings: 
>whether something is obligatory or desirable or permitted, for 
>example (should, ought to, must, may). Some of these, of course, have 
>a range of meanings and shift in and out of those categories. Even if 
>they exhibit formal differences that would argue for different 
>classifications, they may be very much alike in terms of their 
>contribution to discourse--may, in fact, be part of a range of 
>options to accomplish that grounding work.
>    If our reliance on these has been growing over time (percentage 
>of clauses with modals steadily increasing), it stands to reason that 
>we would continue to develop options to get it done, some of them 
>carefully nuanced.
>   That's a view of the language incorporating cognitive and 
>functional concerns.
> 
> Craig
> 
> 
> STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>> Scott,
>>
>> Terms like "modal" and "quasi-modal" or "semi-modal" suggest 
>>categorial distinctions that I've already expressed qualms about. 
>> Since I'm at least partly a historical linguist, I prefer thinking 
>>in terms of grammaticalization.  This is a process that's been 
>>getting quite a lot of attention in the field for about thirty years 
>>now.  Typically a content word begins to generalize or perhaps bleach 
>>semantically, like "come" or "go" forms in lots of languages that 
>>come to be used to mark future or "have" forms that come to mark 
>>perfect.  Both Germanic and Romance exhibit these.  The core modals 
>>in English are a prime example, starting out as full verbs in Old 
>>English, usually preterit presents, and then shedding more and more 
>>lexical content to become grammatical markers.  As these 
>>grammaticalization processes take place, words commonly also change 
>>phonologically.  OE "lic," which meant "body," has grammaticalized to 
>>PDE "like" and "-ly."
>>
>> I think "have to" and "want to" are early in the grammaticalization 
>>process.  The semi-modal forms "hafta" or "hasta" show devoicing that 
>>"have taken" and "has taken" don't show.  However, that devoicing 
>>doesn't yet occur in the past, where "had to" doesn't become "haDa." 
>> The full contraction of "want to" to "wanna" occurs only if the 
>>subject of the infinitive and the subject of "want" are the same.  We 
>>say, "When do you wanna go?" but not "Whom do you wanna go?"  The 
>>latter has to have a full double /t/:  "Whom do you want t@ go?"  The 
>>fact that these expressions have started grammaticalizing doesn't 
>>tell us where they'll end up or if they'll end up in the same place. 
>> Maybe "hafta," etc. will become increasingly modal-like, but it 
>>appears to be following a different diachronic trajectory from 
>>"ought" and "need."  I don't bet on horses and I don't predict 
>>linguistic change.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>> Emeritus Professor of English
>> Ball State University
>> Muncie, IN  47306
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar 
>>[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods 
>>[[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: September 7, 2010 1:40 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: have + infinitive
>>
>> Dear List,
>>
>> Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal 
>>construction with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
>>
>> <I have to go> <I have to eat> <I ought to go> < I ought to eat> <I 
>>must go> <I must eat> all seem like very similar ways of saying the 
>>same thing.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott Woods
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web 
>>interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and 
>>select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web 
>>interface at:
>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web 
>interface at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/