Help: Wanna & Wantta

[quiet sunshine]

What's their difference?
I know waana=want to, wantta=?, when is to use wantta? Could you please give some examples and explain their difference? Thanks!

[Kinsao]

Hi,
I think the difference is only a difference of pronunciation. Both of them mean 'want to', but some people run the words together and miss out the 't' sound, others leave it in.

When it's written down, most people write either 'want to' in full, or 'wanna' if they're being informal/friendly/lazy etc.

Hope that helps!

[Kionon]

There is no difference. They are the same combination of words "want" and "to." You should never use either in formal speech or writing. In fact, I don't use either at all. But my degree is English.

[quiet sunshine]

Originally Posted by Kinsao

Hope that helps!

It really helps!
Thank you, Kinsao and Kionon, for your replies!

[Pachipro]

Kinsao and Kionon gave good explainations.

This question was often brought up by my students back in the day when I was teaching English in Japan.

These two terms come from the phonetic spelling of the spoken words in normal everyday conversation. In fact most people don't even realize they are saying it that way. You will hear it often in conversation in real life and on TV and in the movies. Although the script in a movie may actually say "Do you want to investigate that again" for example, it will be spoken as "Do you wanna (wanta) investigate that again."
I also may say to a friend, "Hey, do you wanna go up to Tokyo tomorrow?"

However, when speaking formally as in giving a speech or something or when writing a letter, one should always use "want to". Hope this helps.

[Sensuikan San]

Excellent explanations, all.

I'm even guilty of using "wanna" in my own posts ! (Usually for reasons of totally informal humour - forgetting that non-English speakers are reading !)

You should also look out for :-

"Waddya?" (U.S) or "Watcha?" (U.K.) ( "What are you ....?") [ "Watcha !" - also used to be used as a popular greeting in the U.K. loosely meaning "What Cheer !" - and possibly still is. ]

"Wuddya?" (Would you ....?)

and "Ennit?" or "Ain't it?" (Isn't it ...?")

I suspect that this happens in most European languages. How one could corrupt Kanji this way, I don't know !

Regards,

ジョン

[deadhippo]

i think its perfectly acceptable to use wanna and its like in even formal situations but the flow of your sentence mustn't be interrupted
what i mean is that if you can clearly hear "wanna" it wont sound elegant
if your speaking is at a decent pace the listener wont have time to catch whether you said wanna or want to
exceptions to this are things like presentations and speeches where enunciation is almost essential in order not to lose the listener

[Kionon]

I disagree, but then as stated, English is my area of study (even if I am a native speaker) and I try very hard not to run words together or slur my speech. I just do not think of it as proper. But I am clearly in the minority.

[bossel]

Originally Posted by Kionon

English is my area of study (even if I am a native speaker) and I try very hard not to run words together or slur my speech. I just do not think of it as proper.

Doesn't linguistic (acoustic) analysis show that in speech pretty much all words run together?
Therefore the merging of "want to" to something like "want?" (where ? represents a schwa-sound) is only natural (& is probably not noticed very much even in most formal situations). "Wanna" is a different matter, since one sound is completely omitted here.

Do you actually study English linguistics or some other field? I have a hard time imagining a linguist talking of "proper" English in reference to speech. I think, insistence on "proper English" should be restricted to school.

[lexico]

The phonological rules governing the phenomenon of 'want to' > 'wanna' or

/wa:nt + tu/ becoming /wa':n@/

can be formally expressed in 4 rules.

1. a sound string of one syntactic subunit can have only one stress.
ex. japan reference FORum

2. an unstressed vowel turns into a schwa sound /@/ (if not originally an i vowel)
ex. Japan /dj@phae':n/

3. a reduplicated consonant string deletes one consonant.
ex. sand dune /sae':ndiu:n/ dd > d

4. an /nd/~/nt/ between a stressed vowel and an unstressed vowel can sometimes flapize the /t~d/ > /D/ or simply delete the /t/ in casual speech.
ex. wanted /wa:nid/

want to =/wa':nt tu'/ > /wa':nt tu/ rule no. 1
> /wa':nt t@/ rule no. 2
> /wa':nt @/ rule no. 3
> /wa':n @/ rule no. 4

Originally Posted by deadhippo

i think its perfectly acceptable to use wanna and its like in even formal situations but the flow of your sentence mustn't be interrupted
what i mean is that if you can clearly hear "wanna" it wont sound elegant
if your speaking is at a decent pace the listener wont have time to catch whether you said wanna or want to
exceptions to this are things like presentations and speeches where enunciation is almost essential in order not to lose the listener

You raise two very interesting subtopics;

1. How to say "wanna" when it comes at the end of a clause/sentence.

I believe the spoken form exists, and is close to /wa:nu/ This would be similar to the above explanation of phonological rules except that the last verb preposition to is still stressed because it stands for the ellipsed verb. Hence no vowel schwavization leaving /u/ intact..

/wa':nt + tu' / > /wa':ntu'/ > /wa':nu:/

2. enunciation: I would also like to include, in addition to your examples of presentations and speeches, language teaching environments, communicating with non-native speakers who are not used to the phonological rules of spoken English. I had seen one US diplomat's wife who would enunciate her English to the degree that I felt 1) uncomfortable and 2) a little insulted, although she had acquired her habit of enunciating out of consideration for her Korean friends she had made in Korea.

[lexico]

Originally Posted by Sensuikan San

Excellent explanations, all.

I'm even guilty of using "wanna" in my own posts ! (Usually for reasons of totally informal humour - forgetting that non-English speakers are reading !)

You should also look out for :-

"Waddya?" (U.S) or "Watcha?" (U.K.) ( "What are you ....?") [ "Watcha !" - also used to be used as a popular greeting in the U.K. loosely meaning "What Cheer !" - and possibly still is. ]

"Wuddya?" (Would you ....?)

and "Ennit?" or "Ain't it?" (Isn't it ...?")

I suspect that this happens in most European languages. How one could corrupt Kanji this way, I don't know !

Regards,

ジョン

Funny examples, Sensuikan-san !
I have one to offer; when one is dumbfounded, at a loss, tongue tied, not knowing what to say, can say "wachamakalit," right ?
It's a contraction of "what you might call it."
It's very useful to save one's face in the face of an uncomfortable pause due to the inability to continue one's speech. Many languages have these face savers, right ?

English: /err, err,... (repeat as necessary)/
/uhm, uhm,... (repeat as necessary)/
/aaah, aaah,... (repeat as neceassry)/
/hmmm,...(pretending to think deep philosophical thoughts with much knowledge and understanding)/

Chinese: /nei ge, nei ge...(repeat as necessariy)/
/zhei ge, zhei ge, ...(repeat as necessary)/
/jiao shenme, zhe ge,...(repeat as necessary)/

Korean: /kugei mwodora, ha ! kugei mwodora, ...(sound pittiful as necessary)/
/kugei, kugei,...(repeat as necessary)/
/jogei, jogei,...(repeat as necessary)/
/eeee, eeee,...(repeat as necessary)/
/kuronika, kuronika,...(repeat as necessary)/

I believe these expressions are also considered part of fluency because they do convey the state of mind of the speaker of uncertainty, surprise, embarassment, temporary speech block, or the desire to avoid embarassment.

[DoctorP]

Originally Posted by Kionon

I disagree, but then as stated, English is my area of study (even if I am a native speaker) and I try very hard not to run words together or slur my speech. I just do not think of it as proper. But I am clearly in the minority.

ROFL...I'm sorry Kionon...I'm just having a hard time visualizing a TEXAN as an English major! (j/k of course)

[CorDarei]

Originally Posted by bossel

Doesn't linguistic (acoustic) analysis show that in speech pretty much all words run together?
Therefore the merging of "want to" to something like "want?" (where ? represents a schwa-sound) is only natural (& is probably not noticed very much even in most formal situations). "Wanna" is a different matter, since one sound is completely omitted here.

Do you actually study English linguistics or some other field? I have a hard time imagining a linguist talking of "proper" English in reference to speech. I think, insistence on "proper English" should be restricted to school.

I think he probably means that he has a BA in English, which to my knowledge does not have a connection to the field of linguistics; it's more about the study of literature and writing. I agree with you that most linguists would not think in terms of "proper" or "improper" English.

[deadhippo]

the english sentence is long and to enunciate every word is more than troublesome and often a hindrance to speedy communication
that is basically why these contractions have developed
these contractions, and they vary from country to country, region to region, even person to person, are the evolution of english and in that way they are superior to enunciated words
while these contractions are difficult for non-native english speakers to pick up, the natives themselves have improved the speed of communication and added a new level to the english language
some find these contractions vulgar, some cool and others maybe dont give them so much thought
everybody uses the contactions - they've, John's (John is/John has) etc. without any thought
those examples really arent any different from the more modern (possibly, im not a linguist) wanna, gonna, shoulda, woulda, etc., etc., ad nauseum

maybe the question should be whether students of english should learn to speak like this
i think many people would say no
that they should learn to enunciate every word, apart from the more accepted contractions of course
i have to admit to once thinking like that but now i dont
i think it is important for the student of english to use contractions in speech
they must learn the non-contracted version for writing purposes but while speaking should mostly use only contracted phrases
the reason i think this way is that most of the world use the more evolved contractions
and i have learned that if you learn how to speak english without contractions you may be able to speak but your ability to understand will be lower than those who speak in the same way as a native speakers

ive had many students ask me, after listening to a cd and reading a tapescript, why they cant hear this word or that letter, i explain to them that it probably wasnt pronounced
they ask how do i know that that word is there
i tell them that its because i speak the same way or that i can guess from the rest of the sentence
i tell them that if they dont learn to speak the same way as us they will find it very difficult to understand native speakers

an example, in japan, students of english cant hear the difference between r and l
why
they dont use either
if they had learned how to use them from a young age they would have no problem
but they never learn how to pronounce r or l
youll find nikkei have no problem telling the difference

[Kinsao]

Interesting thread from a small beginning!

I agree with deadhippo.

When I'm speaking I often use 'wanna' without even noticing (by the way I'm 'British English' not 'American English' - not that it makes a difference, lol).

But, if I'm speaking in a formal situation, I wouldn't leave out the 't'... but the words might sound more like 'want-ta' than 'want-to' - or, with my accent, they might sound like 'want-teh' (or '-tuh)

I think you'd probably only pronounce the 'o' sound in 'to' like an 'ooo' if you were chatting with the queen or something! The short 'to' often sounds more like 't' or 'tuh' or 'teh' even in quite formal speech. I think we tend to reserve the long 'o' for the word 'too' (which is, of course completely different and must be really confusing for foreigners!).

Sorry, I'm rambling, and I'm not even a linguist...!

[lexico]

Originally Posted by Kinsao

When I'm speaking I often use 'wanna' without even noticing (by the way I'm 'British English' not 'American English' - not that it makes a difference, lol).

Which can only mean the intervocalic nt dropping the t rule goes back to before the 1600's or parallel changes on both sides of the Atlantic. Middle English, Old English, did they also drop the t's ?

Originally Posted by Kinsao

But, if I'm speaking in a formal situation, I wouldn't leave out the 't'... but the words might sound more like 'want-ta' than 'want-to' - or, with my accent, they might sound like 'want-teh' (or '-tuh)

The vowel is called the schwa @.

Originally Posted by Kinsao

I think you'd probably only pronounce the 'o' sound in 'to' like an 'ooo' if you were chatting with the queen or something! The short 'to' often sounds more like 't' or 'tuh' or 'teh' even in quite formal speech. I think we tend to reserve the long 'o' for the word 'too' (which is, of course completely different and must be really confusing for foreigners!).

What you say is mostly correct, but I believe when a sentence ends in 'want to' as in the following, the child can enunciate in protest, although she may not be the queen.

Mother: Drink your milk !
Child: I don't want to !

[Sensuikan San]

Originally Posted by lexico

.......What you say is mostly correct, but I believe when a sentence ends in 'want to' as in the following, the child can enunciate in protest, although she may not be the queen.

Mother: Drink your milk !
Child: I don't want to !

Ha Ha !

As a parent - all I can say, Lexico, is ..."only too true! only too true !"

(My son is now over 30 years old - but the rule still applies !)

All children (particularly the very young ...) can be quite as imperious as the Queen whenever they want to !

Regards,

ジョン

[Kionon]

Originally Posted by CC1

ROFL...I'm sorry Kionon...I'm just having a hard time visualizing a TEXAN as an English major! (j/k of course)

Uhuh. You just keep laughing. I'll hog-tie you or something suitably western.

[DoctorP]

lol...I was just joshin' with ya!

[Kionon]

Actually, I was born and learned to speak in Chicago. I have no Texan accent. Ever heard the expression "I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as soon as I could"?

[DoctorP]

so? would you be considered a long term snowbird?

[Kionon]

Not precisely. I left Chicago when I was three.

[Izumi_Tonomura]

gomene watashi wa wakarimasen T T

[quiet sunshine]

Originally Posted by Izumi_Tonomura

gomene watashi wa wakarimasen T T

watashi wa wakarimasen=わたしは　わかりません
gomene=?

[RockLee]

Originally Posted by quiet sunshine

watashi wa wakarimasen=わたしは　わかりません
gomene=?

gomen ne is the correct form and comes from gomennasai = I'm sorry,excuse me