The language curmudgeon . . .

I'm not gonna unless I gotta!

Conrad Weisert
© Information Disciplines, Inc., Chicago—2 November 2009

NOTE: This document may be circulated or quoted from freely, as long as the copyright credit is included.

Professional journals and textbooks are drastically increasing their use of certain non-words intended to indicate an informal verbal construction. They include:

gonna—going to wanna—want to gotta—must; got to	woulda—would've coulda—could've shoulda—should've
The pronunciation of the final syllable, whether it stands for to or have, is the so-called "neutral vowel" in English or "schwa"in the international phonetic alphabet, sometimes rendered "uh" in older dictionaries.

One well-regarded textbook by a major methodology expert observed that:

"Sometimes a programmer's gotta do what a programmer's gotta do!"

So, what's wrong with using those words in a professional publication? Three things:

• First, the words are unnecessary. They serve no useful function. The space saving over the orthodox forms is insignificant. What's wrong with standard English?
• Second, they confuse readers whose first language isn't English. English is already one of the most difficult European languages to learn. Why make it even harder with another illogical idiom?
• Finally, they suggest a pattern that invites further extension: Attaching a to any word and eliding or doubling a consonant just means "to" or "have":
  • I wouldn'ta done it if you hadn'ta made me!
  • Do you wishta be served?
  • To be or notta be.
  Any native English speaker will understand what's meant, but should that be our only criterion?

Return to Business & culture articles
IDI Home Page

Last modified 3 November 2009