While I have "gonna", "wanna", "useta", and "hafta, all of which are phonologically well-behaved, I don't have "planna" at all.  I agree with Huddleston&Pullum on the lexical status of "to" and on its syntactic function, but that has little bearing on its behavior as a clitic.

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 Brett Reynolds [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: October 29, 2009 9:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary?

On 2009-10-29, at 8:43 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English
Grammar wrote:

> This represents a fairly common problem of syntax and morphology not
> lining up with each other.  Certainly "to eat" is an infinitive, but
> "to" also cliticizes to "going" when "going to" acts as a modal, as
> shown by its contraction to "gonna".

I think overmuch is made of this phonological point. The 'to' in
"planning to" has a similar realization, but nobody makes a big deal
about 'planna'.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language calls 'to' a
subordinator (a small set that also includes 'that', 'whether/if' and
certain uses of 'for'). It's neither part of "be going to" nor part of
the infinitive.

Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

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/