I get both "wanna" and "waDa", where the latter has the alveolar tap and is nasalized throughout.  For "center" and "winter" I get only the second of the two possibilities.  

Not a speaker of Youngunese for a long time, but definitely rural SE Michigan, pre-NCVS.

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 Spruiell, William C [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: October 29, 2009 10:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary?

While I'm not entirely certain what I think phonological reduction in
these cases *means*, I find that (in my own dialect, at least) there is
a marked difference between the possibilities with "planning to" vs.
"going to" or "want to." "Planning to" can reduce, but only to something
like "planinda" -- there's still a dental stop in there. The stop is
just gone in "wanna" and "gonna." "Fixing to" reduces to "fixinta" in my
dialect, but "fitna" in Atlanta -- but the dental stop is there in both.
"Wanna" and "gonna" seem *more* reduced than the others.

Other aux-like combos with "to" (e.g. "supposed to," "have to"), a.k.a.
quasimodals, preserve the dental stop, but don't seem entirely parallel
-- nasals seem to figure into stop-dropping more often than do
fricatives or other stops (e.g. the conversion of "sentence" to
"sinanse" in Southern or "se'ens" in the Michigan variety of, um,
Youngunese (or whatever I should call the language of young'uns).

-- Bill Spruiell

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary?
Importance: Low

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/

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/