The word "gonna"

[nq:1]I'm gonna ask this question just once: Is the word "gonna" proper English? The word gonna probably started out as ... manuals as proper English? Or is it one of those non-standard/slang words (like "ain't") or even a non-word, like "irregardless".[/nq]
What'cha mean "non-word"? It be word, irregardless of what you say.

Look to the dictionary, my friend. It has the answers

Lepidopteran filted:
[nq:1]I'm gonna ask this question just once: Is the word "gonna" proper English?[/nq]
It oughta be; I gotta wonder if you wanna make something of it..r

[nq:1]I'm gonna ask this question just once:[/nq]
...and I have a few more, on a similar contraction. Fill in each blank with the appropriate word that begins with the indicated first letter. For example
I'm g ask this question. Ans: gonna
1. I w ask you a question.
2. I can ask if I w .
3. I w answer from you.
[nq:1]Is the word "gonna" proper English? The word gonna

[nq:1]I'm gonna ask this question just once: Is the word "gonna" proper English? The word gonna probably started out as ... manuals as proper English? Or is it one of those non-standard/slang words (like "ain't") or even a non-word, like "irregardless".[/nq]
It's entirely different from "irregardless".
As you say, it's a contraction, and, as with other contractions, is not used in f

+ "are not", "is not", "have not", "has not", "do not", "does not", "did not"
[nq:1]easier to say than "amn't", and without the grammatical error of "aren't I".[/nq]
But can we be sure? It could indeed be the "aren't" meaning that is being employed. Should we assume the best, or the worserest?
[nq:1]Webster's 3rd's usage note on "ain't" is interesting. In part, it reads: though disappr

[nq:2]Let's hear it for "ain't"! It's a convenient contraction for "am not",[/nq]
[nq:1]+ "are not", "is not", "have not", "has not", "do not", "does not", "did not"[/nq]
"Do not", "does not", and "did not"? I can't think of any such uses in any dialect I'm familiar with. There's "I ain't got it" and there's also "I don't got it", but those don't seem to mean the same thing. ("I ain't got

[nq:1]"Do not", "does not", and "did not"? I can't think of any such uses in any dialect I'm familiar with. ... possession, while "I don't got it" is an admission that an earlier "I got it" claim of capability was incorrect.)[/nq]
I was surprised by the "do" varieties too, but when double-checking the others at M-W online (http:

[nq:1]I was surprised by the "do" varieties too, but when double-checking the others at M-W online () I saw them described as "used in some varieties of Black English".[/nq]
Now you've gone and wook up Steve "Purple" Hayes.

[nq:2]I'm gonna ask this question just once:[/nq]
[nq:1]...and I have a few more, on a similar contraction. Fill in each blank with the appropriate word that begins ... you a question. 2. I can ask if I w . 3. I w answer from you.[/nq]
Well 3. is 'wannan' of course, which I've never seen written. My question is, given that these are essentially transcriptions of speech, and presumab

195.188.240.194>...
[nq:2]1. I w ask you a question. 2. ... . 3. I w answer from you.[/nq]
[nq:1]Well 3. is 'wannan' of course, which I've never seen written.[/nq]
Neither have I; my point is that, if a writer represents "want a" in writing as "wanna", that obliges him to use some analogous form for "want an".
My point with 2 is that some people don't reduce the vowel of