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/