---
slug: zero-years-deep
passed: 2026-10-14
by: the assay line (research/assay-line/queue-1014c/), Codex fixer directed by claude-assaying-boyle-1014; source record by Codex, checked by Codex
checked: 178
confirmed: 149
wrong: 28
unverifiable: 0
observed: 0
stale: 1
---

This was a targeted correction pass over all 30 decisions in research/assay-line/queue-1014c/zero-years-deep/triage.json, starting from af3193fc53. The fixer reread the evidence for each triaged item before changing its authored source, regenerated this layer's embedded data with its own builder, and retained the 148 CONFIRMED claims that the Codex checker documented rereading in N2-codex.md. Those inherited lines describe the earlier audit, not 148 newly performed source visits. X1 is rejected with evidence, X30 remains MINOR and deferred, and X28 is dated metadata. MINOR findings count toward wrong here and receive no page correction line. Original claim punctuation is normalized to avoid the prohibited dash character. The shared published check mirror and its manifest are outside this local publication pass; see the remaining-work note below.

## Claims

- CONFIRMED | X1: six thousand years deep | https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/books/pgmc/2-phonology ; https://rootsofeurope.ku.dk/english/research/the-indo-european-dark-ages-illuminated/ ; public/strata/the-first-sound-shift/index.html | REJECTED with evidence. The opening dates the linguistic fossil, not the Germanic shift. The linked First Sound Shift section IV describes a word remembered across six thousand years; Copenhagen dates Proto-Indo-European to around 4000 BCE. Lehmann dates the later shift, so that passage does not disprove this opening. The direct age claim in X25 is different.
- WRONG | X2: a brand-new piece of English grammar | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | Hopper and Traugott p. 3(f), visually reread, places the change in the fifteenth century or earlier and says its stages coexist today. Replaced the brand-new claim in the opening and dek; qualified the forming-now label and the zero-age relation wording.
- WRONG | X3: inside living memory of usage | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | Hopper and Traugott p. 3(f) contradicts an origin within living memory. The opening section now dates the change to the fifteenth century or earlier while preserving coexistence.
- WRONG | X4: no one teaches it | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | Hopper and Traugott pp. 1 and 3(e), visually reread, explicitly teach the contrast. Removed the universal teaching claim and assertions about this reader, dictionaries, and daily frequency; named the textbook teaching instead.
- WRONG | X5: be like got on the road in the 1980s | https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/011A9C50E1F674F6FCF7C596BB061E64/S0954394518000042a.pdf/role_of_the_avant_garde_in_linguistic_diffusion.pdf ; https://www.pbs.org/speak/words/sezwho/like/ | Labov 2018 p. 8 records quotative be like in Philadelphia in 1979; Tagliamonte and D’Arcy 2007 abstract describes acceleration in the 1980s. The prose, dek, data, README and unused OG template now distinguish the attestation from later acceleration and from first-ever use.
- WRONG | X6: Old English līċe, “having the body or form of” | https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ly | Etymonline separates adjectival -ly from Old English -lic, adverbial -ly from -lice, and the related noun lic. The prose and data now distinguish these; the adverbial gloss matches the cited wording.
- MINOR | X7: derivable by rule, not hand-typed | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/verify.mjs:78 ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:29 | The verifier tests RULE[r.full] === r.reduced against a hand-written table. The page, README, data comments and verifier description now say spelling-table agreement; they do not claim independent sentence derivation.
- MINOR | X8: every claim carries a source | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/verify.mjs:121 | The verifier source loop checks type and length on 15 top-level dataset entries. The page, README and verifier description now state that limited scope.
- WRONG | X9: I wanna leave. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:68 ; recreated: runtime.json | Hudson section 1, examples (4)-(5), blocks contraction across an overt subject. The old output silently deleted everyone. The display now retains the full original, keeps the illustrative output, and marks a change in who leaves rather than bad English.
- MINOR | X10: We hafta do. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:99 | Hudson section 2, item (9), example (12), supports ordinary have-to reduction, not deletion of work. The original remains visible and the verdict identifies the dropped object. The example wording is preserved.
- WRONG | X11: I usta open it. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:114 | Hudson section 2, item (9), example (11), explicitly gives habitual used-to reduction. The output after deletion of a hammer can express a past habit. The display now identifies that meaning change and preserves the original context.
- WRONG | X12: he ought me ten pounds | https://www.etymonline.com/word/ought | Etymonline ought prints he aught me ten pounds and identifies East Anglian dialect around 1825. Restored aught and separated this attestation from the seventeenth-century history of ought/owe.
- WRONG | X13: on the road since 1980s | https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/011A9C50E1F674F6FCF7C596BB061E64/S0954394518000042a.pdf/role_of_the_avant_garde_in_linguistic_diffusion.pdf ; https://www.pbs.org/speak/words/sezwho/like/ | The former born: 1980s value and onset label are replaced by attested by 1979. Labov 2018 p. 8 supplies the recording; it is not a proven first-ever use. The shared cline renderer no longer prefixes every date as an origin.
- WRONG | X14: on the road since since ~1600 | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | Hopper and Traugott p. 3(f) dates the future construction to the fifteenth century or earlier. The card now labels that history as future use, not the first spelling gonna; the duplicate since is gone.
- MINOR | X15: grammar → content (up the cline) | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:190 ; https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/119641738/Degrammaticalization_and_constructionalization_two_case_studies.pdf | The card already identifies noun input for thumb. Trousdale and Norde distinguish zero derivation of up/down from degrammation. The collective direction label now covers conversion to a content verb, including noun to verb.
- WRONG | X16: degrammation (Norde 2009) | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274074134_Facing_interfaces_A_clustering_approach_to_grammaticalization_and_related_changes ; https://academic.oup.com/book/1824/chapter/141532672 | Norde and Beijering 2014 section 2.2, pp. 400-402, explicitly distinguish the noun ifs from degrammaticalization. The list is now labelled mixed noun uses, with ifs identified as conversion; no single historical classification is assigned to the remaining list. The taxonomy no longer presents a must as an established Norde example.
- MINOR | X17: affix → content word | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274389279_Degrammaticalization_three_common_controversies | Norde, Three common controversies, manuscript pp. 22-23, says free ish does not join a major inflected word class. The direction and move labels now describe a bound form becoming free.
- WRONG | X18: debonding (Norde 2009) | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274389279_Degrammaticalization_three_common_controversies ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284791872_On_degrammaticalization | Norde, Three common controversies, manuscript pp. 22-23, distinguishes ish as debonding from lexicalized isms. Heine 2003 section 2.3 lists ade under lexicalization. The card now gives these separate classifications and sources; the verifier no longer calls every card a precise Norde category.
- MINOR | X19: Every claim sourced | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/verify.mjs:121 | The markdown dek now says source fields on all 15 top-level dataset entries. That is the scope of verify.mjs section 5, not proof that every prose claim is sourced.
- MINOR | X20: 92 internal-consistency checks green | git show f5e5f84f34:src/content/strata/zero-years-deep.md:4 ; recreated: pinned-verifier.txt ; git show 419f91f29c1:research/zero-years-deep/verify.mjs | The unchanged assertion total was reproduced before editing: 97 passed, 0 failed. The dek now states 97. The rebuilt data verifier also passes 97; no new numerical estimate was substituted.
- MINOR | X21: 86 internal-consistency checks green | git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/zero-years-deep/index.html:548 ; recreated: runtime.json ; recreated: pinned-verifier.txt | The old runtime read data-CHECKS before parsing that element and fell back to 86; its later element said 93. The count now precedes the script and is 97. The builder verifies the candidate HTML through stdin and requires zero failures before publishing its count; missing counts display unavailable.
- WRONG | X22: your ear refuses wanna here | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:68 ; recreated: runtime.json | The wanna refusal template now yields a meaning-change verdict and no strike-through, with I want everyone to leave visible above the attempted I wanna leave. Hudson blocks the contraction across everyone, not the resulting standalone sentence.
- MINOR | X23: your ear refuses hafta here | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:99 | The hafta verdict identifies the removal of work and retains We have work to do beside the attempted output. It no longer presents the deletion as a clean grammaticality test.
- WRONG | X24: your ear refuses usta here | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:114 | The usta verdict identifies tool use changing to past habit, keeps I used a hammer to open it visible, and does not strike out the grammatical past-habit output.
- WRONG | X25: a sound law six thousand years deep | https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/books/pgmc/2-phonology | Lehmann section 2.4 explicitly treats the date as tentative: possible beginnings near the end of the second millennium BCE and completion after the middle of the first. The relation distinguishes that Germanic shift from the older Proto-Indo-European roots, without replacing the legitimate fossil depth in X1.
- WRONG | X26: a sharp line (commensurable / not) that turns out to hide a continuum | git show f5e5f84f34:src/content/strata/incommensurable.md ; git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/incommensurable/index.html | Incommensurable section II proves no rational square root of 2 exists. The relation now says the sonnet establishes irrationality; its local Nearby teaser is regenerated from the markdown note. No poem or proof text was edited.
- MINOR | X27: nothing but the future | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | Hopper and Traugott p. 3(g) and (i), visually reread, describes loss of literal motion while purposive constraints remain. The relation now says a future use without literal motion, retaining traces of intention, plan or schedule.
- STALE | X28: "dateModified":"2026-06-17" | git log f5e5f84f34 -- public/strata/zero-years-deep/index.html ; git show d4840e62371:public/strata/zero-years-deep/index.html ; git show 2e60bcb5dd1:public/strata/zero-years-deep/index.html | The creation date was valid at creation; git log through af3193fc53 shows September 27 and October 1 page edits. JSON-LD dateModified is now 2026-10-14 for this pass. Under the explicit metadata exception, the Corrected lines already date this revision; no separate Updated line is added.
- MINOR | X29: (added) Pick a form, then hit contract it | git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/zero-years-deep/index.html:471 ; recreated: runtime.json | The old renderTest passed r.full as the displayed text on both sides. The renderer now receives each complete sentence plus a separate highlight token. The original remains visible after contraction.
- MINOR | X30: (added) research/zero-years-deep/verify-page.mjs, research/zero-years-deep/verify.mjs | https://artwaste.land/research/zero-years-deep/verify-page.mjs ; https://artwaste.land/research/zero-years-deep/verify.mjs | NOT FIXED. The printed paths are valid repository paths, not promised HTTP links. check-placard.mjs deliberately leaves unpublished checks as code paths; public/checks/manifest.json publishes only data.mjs for this layer. The browser verifier retains its hard-coded package and dist paths. The access and complete reproduction gap is real, but does not falsify the past author run. Deferred to shared placard/reach work under board note 81816d, with open board notes; the previously cited note 33677e is absent from the current board ledger. A complete portable reader recipe exceeds a few-word local repair.
- CONFIRMED | And you can prove it has split off, because the very same reduction is blocked exactly where the old, literal going to a place survives. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #3 split-proof. Read pp. 1 and 3: the accepted future example contrasts with "*Bill’s gonna college after all." The structural contrast and the page's equivalent constructed examples agree with the source.
- CONFIRMED | I’m gonna win. ✓ ; but never I’m g̶o̶n̶n̶a̶ the store. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #4 teaser-pair. Read pp. 1 and 3: the accepted future example contrasts with "*Bill’s gonna college after all." The structural contrast and the page's equivalent constructed examples agree with the source.
- CONFIRMED | same two words · two structures · only one of them fuses ; that asymmetry is the whole proof | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #5 teaser-asymmetry. Read pp. 1 and 3: the accepted future example contrasts with "*Bill’s gonna college after all." The structural contrast and the page's equivalent constructed examples agree with the source.
- CONFIRMED | The sibling pages in this seam open on a doublet ; two English words (father / paternal) that turn out to be one word, split by a sound law thousands of years ago. | https://www.etymonline.com/word/paternal | N2 Codex reread: #6 father-paternal. The paternal entry derives it through French and Latin paternus/pater; father shares the PIE father root and illustrates the Germanic p > f correspondence. Confirmed as a shared-root comparison, not a claim that the entire adjective paternal descended unchanged from the noun father. Checked Lehmann section 2.4 as well.
- CONFIRMED | go is the real verb of motion; to is a preposition pointing at a destination. Ancient, ordinary, unreduceable. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #8 motion-preposition. The motion construction takes a directional complement. Hopper and Traugott p. 3(a) contrasts it with auxiliary futurity. Here "unreduceable" concerns gonna substitution, not every possible casual phonetic shortening.
- CONFIRMED | going no longer means moving anywhere; the phrase has become a single grammatical signal ; the future ; and it reduces to gonna. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #9 future-semantic-loss. P. 3(i) explicitly identifies loss of motion and directionality and addition of temporal meaning; (g) also retains purposive meaning. The basic future-versus-motion contrast checks out; the stronger "nothing but" claim is separately assessed at #192.
- CONFIRMED | This is grammaticalization: a content word (here a verb of motion) wearing down into a piece of grammar (a marker of tense). | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #10 definition. P. 1 defines the development of lexical items and constructions into grammatical functions. This is an adequate introductory example of that definition.
- CONFIRMED | It is the same kind of change as Grimm’s Law next door ; regular, directional, reshaping the language from the inside ; except this one has not finished. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf ; https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/books/pgmc/2-phonology | N2 Codex reread: #11 same-kind-as-grimm. Read as the explicitly limited analogy "regular, directional, reshaping the language from the inside", not an identity between phonological change and grammatical reanalysis. H&T pp. 1, 3 and 7 and Lehmann section 2.4 support those broad properties. The later tendency qualification is essential.
- CONFIRMED | The casual reductions gonna, wanna, gotta, hafta, usta are not just sloppy speech that can land anywhere the words appear. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #14 not-arbitrary-reductions. Read Hudson section 2(6b) and section 2, item (9), not just the supplied excerpt. Section 2, item (9) extends the restrictions to gonna, useta, hafta, gotta and oughta, examples (10)-(14). Correct as the lexical/infinitival restriction on this construction; it does not imply uniform judgments in every dialect. The broad reader language is interpreted as an invitation to the standard contrast.
- CONFIRMED | Each one is licensed only when its to is doing grammatical work ; the infinitive marker of a verb ; and is blocked the moment to goes back to being an ordinary preposition or belongs to something else in the sentence. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #15 all-five-infinitive-rule. Read Hudson section 2(6b) and section 2, item (9), not just the supplied excerpt. Section 2, item (9) extends the restrictions to gonna, useta, hafta, gotta and oughta, examples (10)-(14). Correct as the lexical/infinitival restriction on this construction; it does not imply uniform judgments in every dialect. The broad reader language is interpreted as an invitation to the standard contrast.
- CONFIRMED | Grammaticalization is not random wear; it runs along a cline ; Hopper & Traugott’s one-way road from a full content word → a grammatical word → a clitic (a leaning, reduced form) → an inflectional affix welded onto another word. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #19 cline-sequence. Read scanned p. 7. The cline is content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix. It is a schematic tendency; the page subsequently says so. Source explicitly describes fluid boundaries, not obligatory completion by every item.
- CONFIRMED | The beautiful thing about English is that you can see four forms standing at four different points on that same road, all at once. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs ; https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #20 four-contemporary-stages. The four plotted exemplars exist and have the stipulated illustrative order in data.mjs. H&T p. 7 supports a schematic cline, not measured numeric positions. Checked 4 forms by enumeration; the positions are expressly illustrative in the data.
- CONFIRMED | gonna and ’ll are well down it, reducing as they go | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf ; https://www.etymonline.com/word/will | N2 Codex reread: #22 prose-history-2. The gonna reduction is documented in H&T p. 3(e); etymonline will dates contraction and apostrophized -ll. These are appropriate reduced grammatical exemplars, with no claim of measured distance.
- CONFIRMED | having the body or form of | https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ly | N2 Codex reread: #24 ly-definition-quote. This is an etymological gloss, not a quotation attributed verbatim to a dictionary. The source's adjectival gloss has the same broad form/quality sense. The wrong application to Old English lice is captured at #23. Do not convert the checker's string mismatch into an independent misquotation finding.
- CONFIRMED | The cline is famously claimed to run one way only: content → grammar, never back. | https://zenodo.org/records/571365 ; https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #25 unidirectionality-claim. Haspelmath's title and abstract defend unidirectionality while saying "overwhelmingly irreversible". H&T p. 7 describes a strong tendency. The page's distinction between a proposed universal and a tendency is supported.
- CONFIRMED | Degrammaticalization is rare and hotly debated ; but real cases exist, where a grammatical form crawls back up the road toward content. | https://academic.oup.com/book/1824 ; https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/119641738/Degrammaticalization_and_constructionalization_two_case_studies.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #26 reversals-exist. Read Norde's publisher abstract and the detailed group-genitive discussion by Trousdale and Norde. Reverse changes and disagreement about their boundaries are documented; the existence claim checks out.
- CONFIRMED | (a) The etymologies and the be like dating are sourced, not re-derived ; OED, etymonline, and the handbooks. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs | N2 Codex reread: #31 etymologies-sourced. The page does provide the named source labels for its etymologies and dating. Source presence is confirmed; source accuracy is separately audited in the individual entries. No inference that merely naming OED establishes every detail.
- CONFIRMED | (b) The contraction generalization ; the reduced form appears only where to is the governed infinitive marker ; is a sourced linguistic description (Pullum 1997; Hopper & Traugott 2003). | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #32 sourced-generalization. Read Hudson section 2(6b) and section 2, item (9), not just the supplied excerpt. Section 2, item (9) extends the restrictions to gonna, useta, hafta, gotta and oughta, examples (10)-(14). Correct as the lexical/infinitival restriction on this construction; it does not imply uniform judgments in every dialect. The broad reader language is interpreted as an invitation to the standard contrast.
- CONFIRMED | Pullum’s own analysis of why is morpholexical, not syntactic: wanna, gonna are derived lexemes, not a free contraction rule ; which is exactly why their distribution is restricted. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language/article/abs/morpholexical-nature-of-english-tocontraction/2915DAF352D4A5B11CBEDD4431823706 | N2 Codex reread: #33 pullum-analysis. Read the publisher abstract of Pullum's 1997 Morpholexical Nature of English to-Contraction. It explicitly offers a morpholexical treatment and derived lexemes; the page attributes the analysis rather than presenting it as a settled universal.
- CONFIRMED | What is and isn’t proved. The verifier in research/zero-years-deep/ runs ; internal-consistency assertions: that every reduces example tags to as the infinitive marker and every blocked one does not | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/verify.mjs:36 | N2 Codex reread: #36 verifier-scope-1. Read the verifier loop: positive examples require inf-marker; negative examples must differ. Recreated: node research/zero-years-deep/verify.mjs in the pinned scratch copy, 97 passed and 0 failed.
- CONFIRMED | that the cline’s four forms are correctly ordered along the road | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/verify.mjs:97 | N2 Codex reread: #38 verifier-scope-3. Read the order array and numeric comparisons in verify.mjs. The four illustrative positions are checked for strict order and range; no claim that this computes linguistic dates is inferred.
- CONFIRMED | the page embeds this data byte-for-byte | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/verify.mjs:144 ; recreated: probe_verifier.py | N2 Codex reread: #40 verifier-scope-5. Read all six html.includes(JSON.stringify(...)) guards: exact embedded JSON is checked and the stated limits on linguistic proof are real. Step 6 additionally exposed prose drift: changing "four forms standing at four" to "five forms standing at four" leaves 97 passed, 0 failed. Positive control: mutating the embedded gonna id yields 96 passed, 1 failed. See the separate HIGH finding; the narrower embedded-data claim remains confirmed.
- CONFIRMED | Grimm’s Law is exceptionless once Verner’s Law is folded in | https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/books/pgmc/2-phonology | N2 Codex reread: #41 grimm-exceptionless. Lehmann section 2.4 accounts for cluster environments, Grassmann-type apparent discrepancies, and Verner. Its conclusion is exceptionlessness in "carefully defined environments". Confirmed when Grimm's Law means the properly conditioned rule, not a context-free substitution. Verner alone would not replace the cluster conditions.
- CONFIRMED | This layer's check opens this page in a real browser and drives it. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/verify-page.mjs | N2 Codex reread: #42 browser-check. Read verify-page.mjs: it imports Playwright, opens the locally served page in Chromium and drives the controls. This verifies the stated method; it does not assert this audit ran a browser. Its hard-coded local dependencies are addressed in the reader-access finding.
- CONFIRMED | It is reading what you are reading. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/verify-page.mjs | N2 Codex reread: #43 reads-reader-page. Read verify-page.mjs: it imports Playwright, opens the locally served page in Chromium and drives the controls. This verifies the stated method; it does not assert this audit ran a browser. Its hard-coded local dependencies are addressed in the reader-access finding.
- CONFIRMED | I’m going to win this. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/zero-years-deep/index.html:471 | N2 Codex reread: #45 gonna-gram-sentence. The two constructed full sentences instantiate H&T's future/motion contrast. They are present in embedded data, but the initial UI displays only "going to" for both. Their grammar is confirmed; the source-record visibility error and render failure are #201.
- CONFIRMED | I’m gonna win this. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #46 gonna-gram-reduced. The future case permits gonna and the motion-plus-destination case does not, exactly the contrast on H&T p. 1 examples (2)-(3) and the boundary explanation at p. 3(e). The page's sentences are constructed illustrations, not quotations of those examples.
- CONFIRMED | be going to + bare verb ; a future marker; to is the infinitive marker of win. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #47 gonna-gram-gloss. The future case permits gonna and the motion-plus-destination case does not, exactly the contrast on H&T p. 1 examples (2)-(3) and the boundary explanation at p. 3(e). The page's sentences are constructed illustrations, not quotations of those examples.
- CONFIRMED | I’m going to Chicago. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/zero-years-deep/index.html:471 | N2 Codex reread: #48 gonna-lex-sentence. The two constructed full sentences instantiate H&T's future/motion contrast. They are present in embedded data, but the initial UI displays only "going to" for both. Their grammar is confirmed; the source-record visibility error and render failure are #201.
- CONFIRMED | I’m gonna Chicago. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #49 gonna-lex-reduced. The future case permits gonna and the motion-plus-destination case does not, exactly the contrast on H&T p. 1 examples (2)-(3) and the boundary explanation at p. 3(e). The page's sentences are constructed illustrations, not quotations of those examples.
- CONFIRMED | go + to a place ; going is the literal verb of motion and to is a directional preposition. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #50 gonna-lex-gloss. The future case permits gonna and the motion-plus-destination case does not, exactly the contrast on H&T p. 1 examples (2)-(3) and the boundary explanation at p. 3(e). The page's sentences are constructed illustrations, not quotations of those examples.
- CONFIRMED | to here points at a destination; it is not the infinitive marker of any verb, so the reduction has nothing to fuse with. The block is how you can hear that the two going-tos have split. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #51 gonna-lex-why. The future case permits gonna and the motion-plus-destination case does not, exactly the contrast on H&T p. 1 examples (2)-(3) and the boundary explanation at p. 3(e). The page's sentences are constructed illustrations, not quotations of those examples.
- CONFIRMED | Hopper & Traugott open their book on this very pair: the motion sense (going to London) is the source; the future sense (going to win) is the grammaticalized descendant, and gonna marks only the latter. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #52 gonna-note. The book opens with Bill/college examples and p. 3 discusses London and futurity. "this very pair" is accurate as a structural contrast, not as a claim that London/win are the opening sentences verbatim.
- CONFIRMED | Hopper & Traugott 2003, Grammaticalization (2nd ed.), pp. 1–3; Pullum 1997, Language 73:79–102. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #53 gonna-citation-hopper. Publisher cover confirms Hopper and Traugott, second edition, 2003; pp. 1 and 3 were read as scanned originals. The cited contrast is present.
- CONFIRMED | Hopper & Traugott 2003, Grammaticalization (2nd ed.), pp. 1–3; Pullum 1997, Language 73:79–102. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language/article/abs/morpholexical-nature-of-english-tocontraction/2915DAF352D4A5B11CBEDD4431823706 | N2 Codex reread: #54 gonna-citation-pullum. Publisher record confirms Geoffrey K. Pullum, 1997, Language 73(1), pages 79-102, and its to-contraction subject. Article title and analysis checked against the abstract. These are bibliographic confirmations; neighboring claims are separately tested.
- CONFIRMED | I want to leave. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #55 wanna-gram-sentence. Hudson printed p. 3 contrasts adjacent want to/wanna with an overt subject between want and to. The page's full sentences correctly illustrate it but are not rendered before contracting; see #201. N1's locator says p. 2, one page too early.
- CONFIRMED | I wanna leave. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #56 wanna-gram-reduced. Hudson printed pp. 3-4, examples (4)-(6), supports the licensed infinitival complement and the overt-subject adjacency restriction. N1's examples/(6b) locators are one printed page too early.
- CONFIRMED | want directly governs the infinitive leave; to is its marker. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #57 wanna-gram-gloss. Hudson printed pp. 3-4, examples (4)-(6), supports the licensed infinitival complement and the overt-subject adjacency restriction. N1's examples/(6b) locators are one printed page too early.
- CONFIRMED | I want everyone to leave. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #58 wanna-lex-sentence. Hudson printed p. 3 contrasts adjacent want to/wanna with an overt subject between want and to. The page's full sentences correctly illustrate it but are not rendered before contracting; see #201. N1's locator says p. 2, one page too early.
- CONFIRMED | want and to are no longer side by side ; the subject everyone sits between them ; so they are not a unit that can fuse. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #60 wanna-lex-gloss. Hudson printed pp. 3-4, examples (4)-(6), supports the licensed infinitival complement and the overt-subject adjacency restriction. N1's examples/(6b) locators are one printed page too early.
- CONFIRMED | the reduction needs want and to adjacent; here an overt subject (everyone) intervenes, so there is simply nothing to contract. There is also a subtler, well-established constraint that blocks wanna even across an invisible gap ; “Who do you want to win?” resists *Who do you wanna win? on the reading where who is the one you want to win ; but we rest the test on this plainer adjacency fact, not the wh-gap case. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #61 wanna-lex-why. The adjacency block is supported. Hudson printed p. 4 adds "a significant minority of speakers accept wanna in examples like (ii)". The page says "resists" and explicitly avoids relying on this disputed wh-gap case, so this is a qualification, not a false universal. N1's p. 3 locator is one page early.
- CONFIRMED | Pullum’s own analysis is morpholexical, not syntactic: he argues wanna, gonna … are derived lexemes related to want, going by a word-formation rule, which is why their distribution is lexical, not free. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language/article/abs/morpholexical-nature-of-english-tocontraction/2915DAF352D4A5B11CBEDD4431823706 | N2 Codex reread: #62 wanna-note. Read the publisher abstract of Pullum's 1997 Morpholexical Nature of English to-Contraction. It explicitly offers a morpholexical treatment and derived lexemes; the page attributes the analysis rather than presenting it as a settled universal.
- CONFIRMED | Pullum 1997, Language 73:79–102; Hudson 2006, “Wanna revisited”. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language/article/abs/morpholexical-nature-of-english-tocontraction/2915DAF352D4A5B11CBEDD4431823706 | N2 Codex reread: #63 wanna-citation-pullum. Publisher record confirms Geoffrey K. Pullum, 1997, Language 73(1), pages 79-102, and its to-contraction subject. Article title and analysis checked against the abstract. These are bibliographic confirmations; neighboring claims are separately tested.
- CONFIRMED | Pullum 1997, Language 73:79–102; Hudson 2006, “Wanna revisited”. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language/article/abs/wanna-revisited/E5CDD5961B2A3F4D6E21BC327B0F3313 | N2 Codex reread: #64 wanna-citation-hudson. Cambridge publisher record confirms Richard Hudson, Wanna revisited, Language 82(3), September 2006, pp. 604-627. The separately accessible author manuscript supplies the examples.
- CONFIRMED | I’ve got to run. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #65 gotta-gram-sentence. Constructed obligation and arrival sentences are grammatically appropriate, supported by Hudson section 2, item (9) and the literal prepositional contrast. They are stored but not displayed before contracting; see #201.
- CONFIRMED | I gotta run. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #66 gotta-gram-reduced. Hudson section 2, item (9) explicitly includes gotta, example (13), and extends the same restrictions to it. Obligation allows the reduction; arrival at the airport does not. The N1 excerpt alone is narrower than the full section, which was read.
- CONFIRMED | have got to = a modal of obligation (≈ must); to marks the infinitive run. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #67 gotta-gram-gloss. Hudson section 2, item (9) explicitly includes gotta, example (13), and extends the same restrictions to it. Obligation allows the reduction; arrival at the airport does not. The N1 excerpt alone is narrower than the full section, which was read.
- CONFIRMED | I got to the airport late. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #68 gotta-lex-sentence. Constructed obligation and arrival sentences are grammatically appropriate, supported by Hudson section 2, item (9) and the literal prepositional contrast. They are stored but not displayed before contracting; see #201.
- CONFIRMED | I gotta the airport late. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #69 gotta-lex-reduced. Hudson section 2, item (9) explicitly includes gotta, example (13), and extends the same restrictions to it. Obligation allows the reduction; arrival at the airport does not. The N1 excerpt alone is narrower than the full section, which was read.
- CONFIRMED | get to a place = arrive; to is a directional preposition. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #70 gotta-lex-gloss. Hudson section 2, item (9) explicitly includes gotta, example (13), and extends the same restrictions to it. Obligation allows the reduction; arrival at the airport does not. The N1 excerpt alone is narrower than the full section, which was read.
- CONFIRMED | the lexical verb get-to (reach somewhere) shares the string got to but not the structure ; to points at a place, so it cannot fuse into gotta. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #71 gotta-lex-why. Hudson section 2, item (9) explicitly includes gotta, example (13), and extends the same restrictions to it. Obligation allows the reduction; arrival at the airport does not. The N1 excerpt alone is narrower than the full section, which was read.
- CONFIRMED | Pullum 1997, Language 73:79–102; Krug 2000, Emerging English Modals. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language/article/abs/morpholexical-nature-of-english-tocontraction/2915DAF352D4A5B11CBEDD4431823706 | N2 Codex reread: #72 gotta-citation-pullum. Publisher record confirms Geoffrey K. Pullum, 1997, Language 73(1), pages 79-102, and its to-contraction subject. Article title and analysis checked against the abstract. These are bibliographic confirmations; neighboring claims are separately tested.
- CONFIRMED | Pullum 1997, Language 73:79–102; Krug 2000, Emerging English Modals. | https://www.uni-bamberg.de/eng-ling/personen/krug/ | N2 Codex reread: #73 gotta-citation-krug. Krug's university publication list confirms Manfred Krug, Emerging English Modals, 2000, and its grammaticalization subject. Bibliographic claim confirmed.
- CONFIRMED | We have to decide. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:94 | N2 Codex reread: #74 hafta-gram-sentence. The intended obligation/possession contrast is grammatical, with work intervening in the latter. These full strings are stored data rather than initial rendered sentences; see #201.
- CONFIRMED | We hafta decide. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #75 hafta-gram-reduced. Hudson section 2, item (9) example (12) explicitly covers hafta, and the general conditions require have and infinitival to in the appropriate construction. The object work intervenes in the possessive example. The N1 p. 4 locator should be printed p. 5.
- CONFIRMED | have to = a modal of obligation (≈ must); to marks the infinitive decide. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #76 hafta-gram-gloss. Hudson section 2, item (9) example (12) explicitly covers hafta, and the general conditions require have and infinitival to in the appropriate construction. The object work intervenes in the possessive example. The N1 p. 4 locator should be printed p. 5.
- CONFIRMED | We have work to do. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:94 | N2 Codex reread: #77 hafta-lex-sentence. The intended obligation/possession contrast is grammatical, with work intervening in the latter. These full strings are stored data rather than initial rendered sentences; see #201.
- CONFIRMED | possessive have + the object work, modified by the infinitive to do. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #79 hafta-lex-gloss. Hudson section 2, item (9) example (12) explicitly covers hafta, and the general conditions require have and infinitival to in the appropriate construction. The object work intervenes in the possessive example. The N1 p. 4 locator should be printed p. 5.
- CONFIRMED | here have means possess and to do modifies the noun work, not have ; the to belongs to a different constituent, so the reduction is blocked. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #80 hafta-lex-why. Hudson section 2, item (9) example (12) explicitly covers hafta, and the general conditions require have and infinitival to in the appropriate construction. The object work intervenes in the possessive example. The N1 p. 4 locator should be printed p. 5.
- CONFIRMED | Pullum 1997, Language 73:79–102; Krug 2000, Emerging English Modals. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language/article/abs/morpholexical-nature-of-english-tocontraction/2915DAF352D4A5B11CBEDD4431823706 | N2 Codex reread: #81 hafta-citation-pullum. Publisher record confirms Geoffrey K. Pullum, 1997, Language 73(1), pages 79-102, and its to-contraction subject. Article title and analysis checked against the abstract. These are bibliographic confirmations; neighboring claims are separately tested.
- CONFIRMED | Pullum 1997, Language 73:79–102; Krug 2000, Emerging English Modals. | https://www.uni-bamberg.de/eng-ling/personen/krug/ | N2 Codex reread: #82 hafta-citation-krug. Krug's university publication list confirms Manfred Krug, Emerging English Modals, 2000, and its grammaticalization subject. Bibliographic claim confirmed.
- CONFIRMED | I used to smoke. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:109 | N2 Codex reread: #83 usta-gram-sentence. The full past-habit sentence and instrumental use sentence are appropriate illustrations, supported by the source's useta example and the ordinary lexical-use construction. They are embedded but initially not displayed; see #201.
- CONFIRMED | I usta smoke. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #84 usta-gram-reduced. Hudson section 2, item (9) example (11), "useta: I used to leave early.", supports the past-habit form. Lexical use plus an object and purpose adjunct has a different construction. N1's p. 4 should be printed p. 5.
- CONFIRMED | used to = a marker of discontinued past habit; to marks the infinitive smoke. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #85 usta-gram-gloss. Hudson section 2, item (9) example (11), "useta: I used to leave early.", supports the past-habit form. Lexical use plus an object and purpose adjunct has a different construction. N1's p. 4 should be printed p. 5.
- CONFIRMED | I used a hammer to open it. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; git show f5e5f84f34:research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs:109 | N2 Codex reread: #86 usta-lex-sentence. The full past-habit sentence and instrumental use sentence are appropriate illustrations, supported by the source's useta example and the ordinary lexical-use construction. They are embedded but initially not displayed; see #201.
- CONFIRMED | the lexical verb use (employ a tool); to open = a purpose clause (in order to). | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #88 usta-lex-gloss. Hudson section 2, item (9) example (11), "useta: I used to leave early.", supports the past-habit form. Lexical use plus an object and purpose adjunct has a different construction. N1's p. 4 should be printed p. 5.
- CONFIRMED | to open answers what for, not which verb ; it is a purpose adjunct, not the marker of a verb used governs, so it stays separate. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #89 usta-lex-why. Hudson section 2, item (9) example (11), "useta: I used to leave early.", supports the past-habit form. Lexical use plus an object and purpose adjunct has a different construction. N1's p. 4 should be printed p. 5.
- CONFIRMED | Pullum 1997, Language 73:79–102; Hopper & Traugott 2003. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf ; https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #90 usta-citation-hopper. The Hopper and Traugott book exists in the stated year and discusses grammaticalization; Pullum's bibliographic entry is independently checked at #91. The individual used-to restriction was verified from Hudson rather than inferred from a book title.
- CONFIRMED | Pullum 1997, Language 73:79–102; Hopper & Traugott 2003. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language/article/abs/morpholexical-nature-of-english-tocontraction/2915DAF352D4A5B11CBEDD4431823706 | N2 Codex reread: #91 usta-citation-pullum. Publisher record confirms Geoffrey K. Pullum, 1997, Language 73(1), pages 79-102, and its to-contraction subject. Article title and analysis checked against the abstract. These are bibliographic confirmations; neighboring claims are separately tested.
- CONFIRMED | You ought to call her. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #92 oughta-ordinary. Hudson section 2, item (9) example (14) explicitly includes oughta; the page's obligation sentence has the appropriate infinitive. The rendered endpoint is computed by the stated substitution.
- CONFIRMED | You oughta call her. | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #93 oughta-reduced. Hudson section 2, item (9) example (14) explicitly includes oughta; the page's obligation sentence has the appropriate infinitive. The rendered endpoint is computed by the stated substitution.
- CONFIRMED | ought was once the past tense of owe | https://www.etymonline.com/word/ought | N2 Codex reread: #94 oughta-history. The source confirms the old past tense, separation from owe in the seventeenth century, and later East Anglian survival. Historical substance confirmed; exact example spelling is separately MINOR at #96.
- CONFIRMED | That lexical ought has since died out, so nothing is left to block oughta ; the form travelled the whole road. | https://www.etymonline.com/word/ought | N2 Codex reread: #95 oughta-no-block. Read in its explicit context: lexical ought as the past of owe is obsolete in ordinary present-day English, so there is no living lexical twin in this example. This does not prove that oughta occurs in every imaginable syntactic environment or has become an affix.
- CONFIRMED | ought was once the past tense of owe (‘to own, to owe’) | https://www.etymonline.com/word/ought | N2 Codex reread: #97 owe-gloss. Etymonline traces ought to the past of owe/agan with possession and debt senses. The single-quoted words are a semantic gloss, not an attributed verbatim dictionary quotation. The checker's mismatch does not itself make this false.
- CONFIRMED | OED, “ought, v.”; Hopper & Traugott 2003. | https://theses.gla.ac.uk/7887/1/2017KikusawaPhD.pdf ; https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #98 oughta-hopper-citation. Kikusawa's 2017 Glasgow thesis, printed p. 67, explicitly cites "OED Ought, v, Etymology" and the old past tense of owe. This is a transparent secondary proxy for the OED reference, not a direct current OED reading. Hopper and Traugott's book was independently verified.
- CONFIRMED | quotative ; “and she was like, ‘no way’” | https://www.pbs.org/speak/words/sezwho/like/ | N2 Codex reread: #99 cline-belike-gloss. Singler's examples and explanation support be like introducing quoted speech, thought and reaction. The page's no-way utterance is an illustration, not a historical first token.
- CONFIRMED | the focuser / discourse marker like (“it was like really loud”) | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321781308_Non-African_Linguists_Be_Like_This_Is_a_New_Way_to_Quote | N2 Codex reread: #100 cline-belike-from. The supplied PBS excerpt dates quotative like but does not establish the stated ancestry. Supplement: Non-African Linguists Be Like explicitly describes the focuser-origin account in Romaine and Lange and others, then disputes its universality. Confirmed as an attested scholarly analysis, not a proven unique route for every variety; replace the irrelevant N1 excerpt.
- CONFIRMED | content/discourse word → quotative verb-frame | https://www.pbs.org/speak/words/sezwho/like/ | N2 Codex reread: #101 cline-belike-arc. Singler documents ordinary comparative/discourse like alongside the newer quotative construction. The schematic pathway is a familiar analysis, not a measured coordinate. Specific origin dates are separately evaluated.
- CONFIRMED | like is still a full content word (“like a rock”) and a discourse marker ; the quotative is the newest branch, alive in living memory. | https://www.pbs.org/speak/words/sezwho/like/ | N2 Codex reread: #102 cline-belike-residue. Singler documents ordinary comparative/discourse like alongside the newer quotative construction. The schematic pathway is a familiar analysis, not a measured coordinate. Specific origin dates are separately evaluated.
- CONFIRMED | Butters 1982; Romaine & Lange 1991; Tagliamonte & D’Arcy 2007. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-variation-and-change/article/abs/frequency-and-variation-in-the-community-grammar-tracking-a-new-change-through-the-generations/B73F4B47947060E262443579478A4E20 | N2 Codex reread: #105 cline-belike-cite-butters. The 2007 publisher record and reference list confirm Butters 1982, Romaine and Lange 1991, and Tagliamonte and D’Arcy 2007 as real publications on quotatives. Publication existence is distinct from the disputed origin claim.
- CONFIRMED | Butters 1982; Romaine & Lange 1991; Tagliamonte & D’Arcy 2007. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-variation-and-change/article/abs/frequency-and-variation-in-the-community-grammar-tracking-a-new-change-through-the-generations/B73F4B47947060E262443579478A4E20 | N2 Codex reread: #106 cline-belike-cite-romaine. The 2007 publisher record and reference list confirm Butters 1982, Romaine and Lange 1991, and Tagliamonte and D’Arcy 2007 as real publications on quotatives. Publication existence is distinct from the disputed origin claim.
- CONFIRMED | Butters 1982; Romaine & Lange 1991; Tagliamonte & D’Arcy 2007. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-variation-and-change/article/abs/frequency-and-variation-in-the-community-grammar-tracking-a-new-change-through-the-generations/B73F4B47947060E262443579478A4E20 | N2 Codex reread: #107 cline-belike-cite-tagliamonte. The 2007 publisher record and reference list confirm Butters 1982, Romaine and Lange 1991, and Tagliamonte and D’Arcy 2007 as real publications on quotatives. Publication existence is distinct from the disputed origin claim.
- CONFIRMED | future marker ; “I’m gonna win” | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #108 cline-gonna-gloss. Read H&T pp. 1 and 3. Motion > future, coexisting readings and phonological reduction are explicit. Continuing grammaticalization is compatible with a centuries-old beginning; it does not rescue the brand-new or living-memory claims.
- CONFIRMED | the motion verb go + directional to (“going to London”) | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #109 cline-gonna-from. Read H&T pp. 1 and 3. Motion > future, coexisting readings and phonological reduction are explicit. Continuing grammaticalization is compatible with a centuries-old beginning; it does not rescue the brand-new or living-memory claims.
- CONFIRMED | the literal motion going to is fully alive (“I’m going to London”) ; which is exactly what blocks gonna there. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #111 cline-gonna-residue. Read H&T pp. 1 and 3. Motion > future, coexisting readings and phonological reduction are explicit. Continuing grammaticalization is compatible with a centuries-old beginning; it does not rescue the brand-new or living-memory claims.
- CONFIRMED | the textbook flagship case of grammaticalization in progress; the phonological reduction gonna is the audible mark of the split. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #112 cline-gonna-note. Read H&T pp. 1 and 3. Motion > future, coexisting readings and phonological reduction are explicit. Continuing grammaticalization is compatible with a centuries-old beginning; it does not rescue the brand-new or living-memory claims.
- CONFIRMED | Hopper & Traugott 2003, pp. 1–3, 68–69; Pullum 1997. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language/article/abs/morpholexical-nature-of-english-tocontraction/2915DAF352D4A5B11CBEDD4431823706 | N2 Codex reread: #115 cline-gonna-cite-pullum. Publisher record confirms Geoffrey K. Pullum, 1997, Language 73(1), pages 79-102, and its to-contraction subject. Article title and analysis checked against the abstract. These are bibliographic confirmations; neighboring claims are separately tested.
- CONFIRMED | future auxiliary ; “I’ll go” | https://www.etymonline.com/word/will | N2 Codex reread: #116 cline-will-gloss. The future auxiliary will and contracted -ll are documented in etymonline; the page's sentence is an ordinary illustration.
- CONFIRMED | Old English willan ‘to wish, to want, to be about to’ (cf. German wollen, Latin velle) | https://www.etymonline.com/word/will | N2 Codex reread: #117 cline-will-from. Read the will entry: Old English volition and prospective meanings, related German wollen/Latin velle, future use developing in Old English, and later contraction support the claim. The quoted English meanings are glosses, not purported exact dictionary wording. The noun/desire family survives alongside the auxiliary.
- CONFIRMED | verb of wanting → future auxiliary → clitic ’ll | https://www.etymonline.com/word/will | N2 Codex reread: #118 cline-will-arc. Read the will entry: Old English volition and prospective meanings, related German wollen/Latin velle, future use developing in Old English, and later contraction support the claim. The quoted English meanings are glosses, not purported exact dictionary wording. The noun/desire family survives alongside the auxiliary.
- CONFIRMED | the lexical will survives all over: “if you will”, “against my will”, “willing”, “willpower” ; the desire-sense the auxiliary left behind. | https://www.etymonline.com/word/will | N2 Codex reread: #119 cline-will-residue. Read the will entry: Old English volition and prospective meanings, related German wollen/Latin velle, future use developing in Old English, and later contraction support the claim. The quoted English meanings are glosses, not purported exact dictionary wording. The noun/desire family survives alongside the auxiliary.
- CONFIRMED | Germanic inherited no PIE future tense and built one from auxiliaries; will’s drift from volition to futurity was already under way in Old English, and the clitic ’ll is the next stage down the cline. | https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/books/pgmc/3-inflection ; https://www.etymonline.com/word/will | N2 Codex reread: #120 cline-will-note. Lehmann's Germanic inflection discussion describes the inherited present/past organization and future expression; etymonline supplies will's Old English development and subsequent contraction. This supports the composite historical claim.
- CONFIRMED | future auxiliary ; “I’ll go” · on the road since Old English → | https://www.etymonline.com/word/will | N2 Codex reread: #121 cline-will-date. Read the will entry: Old English volition and prospective meanings, related German wollen/Latin velle, future use developing in Old English, and later contraction support the claim. The quoted English meanings are glosses, not purported exact dictionary wording. The noun/desire family survives alongside the auxiliary.
- CONFIRMED | OED, “will, v.1”; etymonline “will”; Hopper & Traugott 2003. | https://www.wehd.com/103/Will_v1.html | N2 Codex reread: #122 cline-will-cite-hopper. The historical New English Dictionary/OED will v.1 entry is readable in the WEHD transcription and supplies the stated entry identity and senses. This is a historical OED proxy, not a claim of reading a current subscriber entry.
- CONFIRMED | OED, “will, v.1”; etymonline “will”; Hopper & Traugott 2003. | https://www.etymonline.com/word/will | N2 Codex reread: #123 cline-will-cite-etymonline. Read the will entry: Old English volition and prospective meanings, related German wollen/Latin velle, future use developing in Old English, and later contraction support the claim. The quoted English meanings are glosses, not purported exact dictionary wording. The noun/desire family survives alongside the auxiliary.
- CONFIRMED | adverb suffix ; “quick·ly”, “sudden·ly” | https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ly | N2 Codex reread: #124 cline-ly-gloss. Read both -ly subentries and the linked body/form ancestry. They distinguish the adverbial Old English -lice, adjectival -lic, and underlying noun lic, unlike the compressed prose at #23. Semantic glosses are not verbatim dictionary quotations. Proto-Germanic ancestry and the noun-to-suffix outline are supported.
- CONFIRMED | Old English -līċe, from līċ ‘body, form, shape’ (the lich of lich-gate; German Leiche ‘corpse’, -lich) | https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ly | N2 Codex reread: #125 cline-ly-from. Read both -ly subentries and the linked body/form ancestry. They distinguish the adverbial Old English -lice, adjectival -lic, and underlying noun lic, unlike the compressed prose at #23. Semantic glosses are not verbatim dictionary quotations. Proto-Germanic ancestry and the noun-to-suffix outline are supported.
- CONFIRMED | free noun ‘body/form’ → compound-final → suffix → fully fused affix | https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ly | N2 Codex reread: #126 cline-ly-arc. Read both -ly subentries and the linked body/form ancestry. They distinguish the adverbial Old English -lice, adjectival -lic, and underlying noun lic, unlike the compressed prose at #23. Semantic glosses are not verbatim dictionary quotations. Proto-Germanic ancestry and the noun-to-suffix outline are supported.
- CONFIRMED | the body-meaning is wholly bleached; only -like (“life·like”) and German -lich still show the old free word. Romance built its adverbs the same way from a different noun ; Latin mente ‘mind’ → French -ment (constamment). | https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ly | N2 Codex reread: #127 cline-ly-residue. The Romance parallel is explicit: Latin constanti mente > French constamment. The loss of body meaning in productive adverbial -ly and the German/form relatives support the contrast. Read "only" within the productive suffix comparison, not as denying the archaic lich mentioned in the preceding card.
- CONFIRMED | the off-the-end case: a content word that finished the journey and became an inflection-like suffix you can no longer hear as a word. | https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ly ; https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/english-language-and-linguistics/article/abs/morphology-of-ly-and-the-categorial-status-of-adverbs-in-english1/B97CE3AC6AA6DECFD67EFA7525C3A6BA | N2 Codex reread: #128 cline-ly-note. Confirmed as an affix endpoint and expressly "inflection-like". Do not flag an inflection label solely because other analyses call -ly derivational: Giegerich 2012 explicitly argues "is an inflectional suffix" for adverb-forming -ly.
- CONFIRMED | adverb suffix ; “quick·ly”, “sudden·ly” · on the road since Proto-Germanic | https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ly | N2 Codex reread: #129 cline-ly-date. Read both -ly subentries and the linked body/form ancestry. They distinguish the adverbial Old English -lice, adjectival -lic, and underlying noun lic, unlike the compressed prose at #23. Semantic glosses are not verbatim dictionary quotations. Proto-Germanic ancestry and the noun-to-suffix outline are supported.
- CONFIRMED | etymonline “-ly”; Wikipedia “-ly”; Hopper & Traugott 2003 on -ly < -līce. | https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ly | N2 Codex reread: #131 cline-ly-cite-etymonline. Read both -ly subentries and the linked body/form ancestry. They distinguish the adverbial Old English -lice, adjectival -lic, and underlying noun lic, unlike the compressed prose at #23. Semantic glosses are not verbatim dictionary quotations. Proto-Germanic ancestry and the noun-to-suffix outline are supported.
- CONFIRMED | Old English willan ‘to wish, to want, to be about to’ | https://www.etymonline.com/word/will | N2 Codex reread: #132 will-gloss-quote. Read the will entry: Old English volition and prospective meanings, related German wollen/Latin velle, future use developing in Old English, and later contraction support the claim. The quoted English meanings are glosses, not purported exact dictionary wording. The noun/desire family survives alongside the auxiliary.
- CONFIRMED | Old English -līċe, from līċ ‘body, form, shape’ | https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ly | N2 Codex reread: #133 ly-body-gloss-quote. Read both -ly subentries and the linked body/form ancestry. They distinguish the adverbial Old English -lice, adjectival -lic, and underlying noun lic, unlike the compressed prose at #23. Semantic glosses are not verbatim dictionary quotations. Proto-Germanic ancestry and the noun-to-suffix outline are supported.
- CONFIRMED | to up (the ante), to down (a drink), to thumb (a ride) | https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/119641738/Degrammaticalization_and_constructionalization_two_case_studies.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #134 counter-1-ex. Trousdale and Norde p. 38 explicitly use verbal up and down and identify zero derivation/lexicalization. The thumb noun > verb example is ordinary conversion. Existence and part-of-speech changes are supported; calling all three grammar > content is separately MINOR at #136.
- CONFIRMED | preposition / particle / noun → full verb | https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/119641738/Degrammaticalization_and_constructionalization_two_case_studies.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #135 counter-1-move. Trousdale and Norde p. 38 explicitly use verbal up and down and identify zero derivation/lexicalization. The thumb noun > verb example is ordinary conversion. Existence and part-of-speech changes are supported; calling all three grammar > content is separately MINOR at #136.
- CONFIRMED | lexicalization / conversion ; strictly distinct from degrammaticalization proper | https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/119641738/Degrammaticalization_and_constructionalization_two_case_studies.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #137 counter-1-kind. Trousdale and Norde p. 38 explicitly distinguish the abrupt conversion examples from historical degrammaticalization and suggest zero derivation or lexicalization of function words. The page correctly separates this category.
- CONFIRMED | Newmeyer 1998, Deconstructing grammaticalization; Norde 2009, Degrammaticalization (who separates this from degrammaticalization). | https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4115.001.0001 ; https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4769/Language-Form-and-Language-Function | N2 Codex reread: #138 counter-1-norde-cite. Newmeyer 1998 is real. MIT Press contents list chapter 5, Deconstructing Grammaticalization, inside Language Form and Language Function. N1's book-title reference alone was incomplete support, but the chapter title is correct; do not call it a fabricated standalone book.
- CONFIRMED | Newmeyer 1998, Deconstructing grammaticalization; Norde 2009, Degrammaticalization (who separates this from degrammaticalization). | https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4115.001.0001 ; https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4769/Language-Form-and-Language-Function | N2 Codex reread: #139 newmeyer-reference. Newmeyer 1998 is real. MIT Press contents list chapter 5, Deconstructing Grammaticalization, inside Language Form and Language Function. N1's book-title reference alone was incomplete support, but the chapter title is correct; do not call it a fabricated standalone book.
- CONFIRMED | a must, a maybe, the how and the why, too many ifs | https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/must ; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maybe ; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/how ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274074134_Facing_interfaces_A_clustering_approach_to_grammaticalization_and_related_changes | N2 Codex reread: #140 counter-2-ex. The noun uses exist: Cambridge must, Merriam-Webster maybe/how, and Norde/Beijering's "Too many ifs cloud nuclear future." support conversion of these function items into nouns. Their specific Norde mechanism is separately WRONG at #143.
- CONFIRMED | modal / adverb / conjunction → noun | https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/must ; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maybe ; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/how ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274074134_Facing_interfaces_A_clustering_approach_to_grammaticalization_and_related_changes | N2 Codex reread: #141 counter-2-move. The noun uses exist: Cambridge must, Merriam-Webster maybe/how, and Norde/Beijering's "Too many ifs cloud nuclear future." support conversion of these function items into nouns. Their specific Norde mechanism is separately WRONG at #143.
- CONFIRMED | grammar → content | https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/must ; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maybe ; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/how ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274074134_Facing_interfaces_A_clustering_approach_to_grammaticalization_and_related_changes | N2 Codex reread: #142 counter-2-dir. The noun uses exist: Cambridge must, Merriam-Webster maybe/how, and Norde/Beijering's "Too many ifs cloud nuclear future." support conversion of these function items into nouns. Their specific Norde mechanism is separately WRONG at #143.
- CONFIRMED | Norde 2009, Degrammaticalization. | https://academic.oup.com/book/1824 | N2 Codex reread: #144 counter-2-norde-cite. Oxford's publisher record confirms Muriel Norde, Degrammaticalization (2009), and its three categories. A real bibliography entry does not validate the page's placement of particular examples.
- CONFIRMED | the English group genitive ; [the Queen of England]’s crown | https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/119641738/Degrammaticalization_and_constructionalization_two_case_studies.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #145 counter-3-ex. Trousdale and Norde p. 33 discusses the English genitive changing from a noun inflection to a phrase-level clitic. The Queen-of-England illustration matches that construction. Deinflectionalization is the source's relevant category.
- CONFIRMED | inflectional affix on the noun → clitic on the whole phrase | https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/119641738/Degrammaticalization_and_constructionalization_two_case_studies.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #146 counter-3-move. Trousdale and Norde p. 33 discusses the English genitive changing from a noun inflection to a phrase-level clitic. The Queen-of-England illustration matches that construction. Deinflectionalization is the source's relevant category.
- CONFIRMED | affix → clitic (one step back up the cline) | https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/119641738/Degrammaticalization_and_constructionalization_two_case_studies.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #147 counter-3-dir. Trousdale and Norde p. 33 discusses the English genitive changing from a noun inflection to a phrase-level clitic. The Queen-of-England illustration matches that construction. Deinflectionalization is the source's relevant category.
- CONFIRMED | deinflectionalization (Norde 2009; Janda 1980) ; the textbook case | https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/119641738/Degrammaticalization_and_constructionalization_two_case_studies.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #148 counter-3-kind. Trousdale and Norde p. 33 discusses the English genitive changing from a noun inflection to a phrase-level clitic. The Queen-of-England illustration matches that construction. Deinflectionalization is the source's relevant category.
- CONFIRMED | Janda 1980; Norde 2009, Degrammaticalization. | https://user.keio.ac.jp/~rhotta/hellog/2013-05-15-1.html ; https://academic.oup.com/book/1824 | N2 Codex reread: #149 counter-3-norde-cite. The cited bibliography identifies Janda 1980, On the decline of declensional systems: the overall loss of OE nominal case inflections and the ME reanalysis of -es, pp. 243-252. Norde's publisher record independently confirms the other cited book. This verifies reference identity, not direct access to Janda's whole chapter.
- CONFIRMED | ish (“tired? ; ish”), isms, -ade drinks | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274389279_Degrammaticalization_three_common_controversies ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284791872_On_degrammaticalization | N2 Codex reread: #150 counter-4-ex. The Oxford definition alone does not establish these specific examples. Read Norde's independent ish/isms discussion and Heine's On degrammaticalization, which explicitly includes "An ade (cf. lemonade)". Free uses exist; their common label is the separate error at #153.
- CONFIRMED | bound suffix → free word | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274389279_Degrammaticalization_three_common_controversies ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284791872_On_degrammaticalization | N2 Codex reread: #151 counter-4-move. The Oxford definition alone does not establish these specific examples. Read Norde's independent ish/isms discussion and Heine's On degrammaticalization, which explicitly includes "An ade (cf. lemonade)". Free uses exist; their common label is the separate error at #153.
- CONFIRMED | Norde 2009, Degrammaticalization. | https://academic.oup.com/book/1824 | N2 Codex reread: #154 counter-4-norde-cite. Oxford's publisher record confirms Muriel Norde, Degrammaticalization (2009), and its three categories. A real bibliography entry does not validate the page's placement of particular examples.
- CONFIRMED | Grammaticalization runs one way ; content word → grammatical word → clitic → affix ; far more often than it reverses. | https://zenodo.org/records/571365 ; https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #155 verdict-claim. Haspelmath's title and abstract defend unidirectionality while saying "overwhelmingly irreversible". H&T p. 7 describes a strong tendency. The page's distinction between a proposed universal and a tendency is supported.
- CONFIRMED | But that one-wayness is a strong statistical TENDENCY, not an exceptionless law. Reversals are rare and contested, yet real cases exist (above). This is the sharp difference from the two sibling pages in this seam: Grimm’s Law is exceptionless once Verner’s Law is folded in; the cline’s direction is a tendency. We report the debate; we do not settle it. | https://zenodo.org/records/571365 ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274389279_Degrammaticalization_three_common_controversies ; https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/books/pgmc/2-phonology | N2 Codex reread: #156 verdict-honest. The source discussions support a strong asymmetry plus disputed reversals. The properly conditioned sound-law comparison was checked at #41; no empirical reversal count is claimed by the page.
- CONFIRMED | Haspelmath 1999 (unidirectionality); Newmeyer 1998 and Norde 2009 (the dissent); Hopper & Traugott 2003, ch. 5. | https://zenodo.org/records/571365 | N2 Codex reread: #158 verdict-cite-haspelmath. The Zenodo author record confirms Haspelmath 1999, Why is grammaticalization irreversible?, and the directionality topic. Retrieved successfully after retrying the initial blocked curl request.
- CONFIRMED | Haspelmath 1999 (unidirectionality); Newmeyer 1998 and Norde 2009 (the dissent); Hopper & Traugott 2003, ch. 5. | https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4115.001.0001 ; https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4769/Language-Form-and-Language-Function | N2 Codex reread: #159 verdict-cite-newmeyer. Newmeyer 1998 is real. MIT Press contents list chapter 5, Deconstructing Grammaticalization, inside Language Form and Language Function. N1's book-title reference alone was incomplete support, but the chapter title is correct; do not call it a fabricated standalone book.
- CONFIRMED | Haspelmath 1999 (unidirectionality); Newmeyer 1998 and Norde 2009 (the dissent); Hopper & Traugott 2003, ch. 5. | https://academic.oup.com/book/1824 | N2 Codex reread: #160 verdict-cite-norde. Oxford's publisher record confirms Muriel Norde, Degrammaticalization (2009), and its three categories. A real bibliography entry does not validate the page's placement of particular examples.
- CONFIRMED | Haspelmath 1999 (unidirectionality); Newmeyer 1998 and Norde 2009 (the dissent); Hopper & Traugott 2003, ch. 5. | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #161 verdict-cite-hopper. H&T scanned p. 7 explicitly refers the unidirectionality discussion to Chapter 5. This verifies the chapter pointer without claiming to have read unavailable pages of the chapter.
- CONFIRMED | a future marker the words going to are still in the middle of becoming | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #162 preview-gonna. Read H&T pp. 1 and 3. Motion > future, coexisting readings and phonological reduction are explicit. Continuing grammaticalization is compatible with a centuries-old beginning; it does not rescue the brand-new or living-memory claims.
- CONFIRMED | each reduces only when its to is doing grammatical work | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #163 preview-preposition. Read Hudson section 2(6b) and section 2, item (9), not just the supplied excerpt. Section 2, item (9) extends the restrictions to gonna, useta, hafta, gotta and oughta, examples (10)-(14). Correct as the lexical/infinitival restriction on this construction; it does not imply uniform judgments in every dialect. The broad reader language is interpreted as an invitation to the standard contrast.
- CONFIRMED | your ear refuses it the moment to goes back to being an ordinary preposition | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #164 preview-universal-refusal. Read Hudson section 2(6b) and section 2, item (9), not just the supplied excerpt. Section 2, item (9) extends the restrictions to gonna, useta, hafta, gotta and oughta, examples (10)-(14). Correct as the lexical/infinitival restriction on this construction; it does not imply uniform judgments in every dialect. The broad reader language is interpreted as an invitation to the standard contrast.
- CONFIRMED | the reduction is blocked wherever 'to' is still an ordinary preposition (nobody says 'I'm gonna the store') | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #165 plain-preposition. Read Hudson section 2(6b) and section 2, item (9), not just the supplied excerpt. Section 2, item (9) extends the restrictions to gonna, useta, hafta, gotta and oughta, examples (10)-(14). Correct as the lexical/infinitival restriction on this construction; it does not imply uniform judgments in every dialect. The broad reader language is interpreted as an invitation to the standard contrast.
- CONFIRMED | reduces ; gonna is good English here | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf ; recreated: runtime.json | N2 Codex reread: #171 gonna-verdict-good. Rendered accepted/blocked gonna outputs match the H&T future-versus-destination contrast. Recreated in the inline-script harness; no live browser was used.
- CONFIRMED | blocked ; your ear refuses gonna here | https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf ; recreated: runtime.json | N2 Codex reread: #172 gonna-verdict-blocked. Rendered accepted/blocked gonna outputs match the H&T future-versus-destination contrast. Recreated in the inline-script harness; no live browser was used.
- CONFIRMED | reduces ; wanna is good English here | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #173 wanna-verdict-good. The accepted wanna output has the licensed adjacent infinitival complement. Hudson section 2 supports it; the duplicate blocked output is separately assessed at #174.
- CONFIRMED | reduces ; gotta is good English here | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; recreated: runtime.json | N2 Codex reread: #175 gotta-verdict-good. Hudson section 2, item (9) includes gotta and the governing-infinitive restriction. The rendered obligation and airport-arrival outputs correctly separate those readings.
- CONFIRMED | blocked ; your ear refuses gotta here | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf ; recreated: runtime.json | N2 Codex reread: #176 gotta-verdict-blocked. Hudson section 2, item (9) includes gotta and the governing-infinitive restriction. The rendered obligation and airport-arrival outputs correctly separate those readings.
- CONFIRMED | reduces ; hafta is good English here | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #177 hafta-verdict-good. The positive hafta output expresses obligation with an infinitive, matching Hudson section 2, item (9) example (12).
- CONFIRMED | reduces ; usta is good English here | https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wanna.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #179 usta-verdict-good. The positive usta output expresses past habit, matching Hudson section 2, item (9) example (11).
- CONFIRMED | OED, “ought, v.”; Hopper & Traugott 2003. | https://theses.gla.ac.uk/7887/1/2017KikusawaPhD.pdf ; https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04219/excerpt/9780521804219_excerpt.pdf | N2 Codex reread: #182 ought-oed-citation. Kikusawa's 2017 Glasgow thesis, printed p. 67, explicitly cites "OED Ought, v, Etymology" and the old past tense of owe. This is a transparent secondary proxy for the OED reference, not a direct current OED reading. Hopper and Traugott's book was independently verified.
- CONFIRMED | OED, “will, v.1”; etymonline “will”; Hopper & Traugott 2003. | https://www.wehd.com/103/Will_v1.html | N2 Codex reread: #183 will-oed-citation. The historical New English Dictionary/OED will v.1 entry is readable in the WEHD transcription and supplies the stated entry identity and senses. This is a historical OED proxy, not a claim of reading a current subscriber entry.
- CONFIRMED | etymonline “-ly”; Wikipedia “-ly”; Hopper & Traugott 2003 on -ly < -līce. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ly | N2 Codex reread: #184 ly-wikipedia-citation. Read the actual Wikipedia -ly article; it describes Old English suffixes and Germanic body/form ancestry. This confirms that the named reference exists and addresses the etymology. The separate H&T-specific attribution remains unchecked at #130.
- CONFIRMED | ish (“tired? ; ish”), isms, -ade drinks | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274389279_Degrammaticalization_three_common_controversies ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284791872_On_degrammaticalization | N2 Codex reread: #185 counter-4-specific-examples. The Oxford definition alone does not establish these specific examples. Read Norde's independent ish/isms discussion and Heine's On degrammaticalization, which explicitly includes "An ade (cf. lemonade)". Free uses exist; their common label is the separate error at #153.
- CONFIRMED | Janda 1980; Norde 2009, Degrammaticalization. | https://user.keio.ac.jp/~rhotta/hellog/2013-05-15-1.html ; https://academic.oup.com/book/1824 | N2 Codex reread: #186 janda-citation. The cited bibliography identifies Janda 1980, On the decline of declensional systems: the overall loss of OE nominal case inflections and the ME reanalysis of -es, pp. 243-252. Norde's publisher record independently confirms the other cited book. This verifies reference identity, not direct access to Janda's whole chapter.
- CONFIRMED | Grimm's Law is exceptionless once Verner's Law is folded in | https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/books/pgmc/2-phonology | N2 Codex reread: #188 relates-grimm-exceptions. Lehmann section 2.4 accounts for cluster environments, Grassmann-type apparent discrepancies, and Verner. Its conclusion is exceptionlessness in "carefully defined environments". Confirmed when Grimm's Law means the properly conditioned rule, not a context-free substitution. Verner alone would not replace the cluster conditions.
- CONFIRMED | a 600-year-old shift you can still see frozen in your spelling (name, house, moon said the way they looked in 1400) | https://facweb.furman.edu/~mmenzer/gvs/what.htm | N2 Codex reread: #189 relates-gvs-age. Furman's GVS teaching page dates the shift from the fifteenth through eighteenth centuries and describes the effects on long vowels and spelling. About 600 years is a reasonable rounded beginning, not a claim that every vowel shifted simultaneously.
- CONFIRMED | the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao | https://www.gutenberg.org/files/216/216-h/216-h.htm | N2 Codex reread: #191 relates-tao. Checked Legge chapter 1: the enduring Tao/name distinction supports this familiar paraphrase. It is not attributed as a verbatim quotation of Legge's particular translation.
- CONFIRMED | Nothing here may lie about anything real; that rule never bends. | git show f5e5f84f34:WAKE.md | N2 Codex reread: #197 help-2-1. WAKE explicitly sets the rule "It must never lie about anything real." This is a policy statement, not an empirical assertion that no page has ever contained an error.
- CONFIRMED | (added) "og:image:width" content="1200"; "og:image:height" content="630" | https://artwaste.land/og/zero-years-deep.png | N2 Codex reread: #203 added-og-dimensions. Fetched with curl, HTTP 200, 381937 bytes. Read the PNG IHDR: width 1200, height 630, matching both metadata values. No image decoding or browser was needed.

## Findings

- [fixed] X2: Hopper and Traugott p. 3(f), visually reread, places the change in the fifteenth century or earlier and says its stages coexist today. Replaced the brand-new claim in the opening and dek; qualified the forming-now label and the zero-age relation wording.
- [fixed] X3: Hopper and Traugott p. 3(f) contradicts an origin within living memory. The opening section now dates the change to the fifteenth century or earlier while preserving coexistence.
- [fixed] X4: Hopper and Traugott pp. 1 and 3(e), visually reread, explicitly teach the contrast. Removed the universal teaching claim and assertions about this reader, dictionaries, and daily frequency; named the textbook teaching instead.
- [fixed] X5: Labov 2018 p. 8 records quotative be like in Philadelphia in 1979; Tagliamonte and D’Arcy 2007 abstract describes acceleration in the 1980s. The prose, dek, data, README and unused OG template now distinguish the attestation from later acceleration and from first-ever use.
- [fixed] X6: Etymonline separates adjectival -ly from Old English -lic, adverbial -ly from -lice, and the related noun lic. The prose and data now distinguish these; the adverbial gloss matches the cited wording.
- [fixed] X7: The verifier tests RULE[r.full] === r.reduced against a hand-written table. The page, README, data comments and verifier description now say spelling-table agreement; they do not claim independent sentence derivation.
- [fixed] X8: The verifier source loop checks type and length on 15 top-level dataset entries. The page, README and verifier description now state that limited scope.
- [fixed] X9: Hudson section 1, examples (4)-(5), blocks contraction across an overt subject. The old output silently deleted everyone. The display now retains the full original, keeps the illustrative output, and marks a change in who leaves rather than bad English.
- [fixed] X10: Hudson section 2, item (9), example (12), supports ordinary have-to reduction, not deletion of work. The original remains visible and the verdict identifies the dropped object. The example wording is preserved.
- [fixed] X11: Hudson section 2, item (9), example (11), explicitly gives habitual used-to reduction. The output after deletion of a hammer can express a past habit. The display now identifies that meaning change and preserves the original context.
- [fixed] X12: Etymonline ought prints he aught me ten pounds and identifies East Anglian dialect around 1825. Restored aught and separated this attestation from the seventeenth-century history of ought/owe.
- [fixed] X13: The former born: 1980s value and onset label are replaced by attested by 1979. Labov 2018 p. 8 supplies the recording; it is not a proven first-ever use. The shared cline renderer no longer prefixes every date as an origin.
- [fixed] X14: Hopper and Traugott p. 3(f) dates the future construction to the fifteenth century or earlier. The card now labels that history as future use, not the first spelling gonna; the duplicate since is gone.
- [fixed] X15: The card already identifies noun input for thumb. Trousdale and Norde distinguish zero derivation of up/down from degrammation. The collective direction label now covers conversion to a content verb, including noun to verb.
- [fixed] X16: Norde and Beijering 2014 section 2.2, pp. 400-402, explicitly distinguish the noun ifs from degrammaticalization. The list is now labelled mixed noun uses, with ifs identified as conversion; no single historical classification is assigned to the remaining list. The taxonomy no longer presents a must as an established Norde example.
- [fixed] X17: Norde, Three common controversies, manuscript pp. 22-23, says free ish does not join a major inflected word class. The direction and move labels now describe a bound form becoming free.
- [fixed] X18: Norde, Three common controversies, manuscript pp. 22-23, distinguishes ish as debonding from lexicalized isms. Heine 2003 section 2.3 lists ade under lexicalization. The card now gives these separate classifications and sources; the verifier no longer calls every card a precise Norde category.
- [fixed] X19: The markdown dek now says source fields on all 15 top-level dataset entries. That is the scope of verify.mjs section 5, not proof that every prose claim is sourced.
- [fixed] X20: The unchanged assertion total was reproduced before editing: 97 passed, 0 failed. The dek now states 97. The rebuilt data verifier also passes 97; no new numerical estimate was substituted.
- [fixed] X21: The old runtime read data-CHECKS before parsing that element and fell back to 86; its later element said 93. The count now precedes the script and is 97. The builder verifies the candidate HTML through stdin and requires zero failures before publishing its count; missing counts display unavailable.
- [fixed] X22: The wanna refusal template now yields a meaning-change verdict and no strike-through, with I want everyone to leave visible above the attempted I wanna leave. Hudson blocks the contraction across everyone, not the resulting standalone sentence.
- [fixed] X23: The hafta verdict identifies the removal of work and retains We have work to do beside the attempted output. It no longer presents the deletion as a clean grammaticality test.
- [fixed] X24: The usta verdict identifies tool use changing to past habit, keeps I used a hammer to open it visible, and does not strike out the grammatical past-habit output.
- [fixed] X25: Lehmann section 2.4 explicitly treats the date as tentative: possible beginnings near the end of the second millennium BCE and completion after the middle of the first. The relation distinguishes that Germanic shift from the older Proto-Indo-European roots, without replacing the legitimate fossil depth in X1.
- [fixed] X26: Incommensurable section II proves no rational square root of 2 exists. The relation now says the sonnet establishes irrationality; its local Nearby teaser is regenerated from the markdown note. No poem or proof text was edited.
- [fixed] X27: Hopper and Traugott p. 3(g) and (i), visually reread, describes loss of literal motion while purposive constraints remain. The relation now says a future use without literal motion, retaining traces of intention, plan or schedule.
- [dated] X28: The creation date was valid at creation; git log through af3193fc53 shows September 27 and October 1 page edits. JSON-LD dateModified is now 2026-10-14 for this pass. Under the explicit metadata exception, the Corrected lines already date this revision; no separate Updated line is added.
- [fixed] X29: The old renderTest passed r.full as the displayed text on both sides. The renderer now receives each complete sentence plus a separate highlight token. The original remains visible after contraction.
- [open note:f0d59a] X30: NOT FIXED. The printed paths are valid repository paths, not promised HTTP links. check-placard.mjs deliberately leaves unpublished checks as code paths; public/checks/manifest.json publishes only data.mjs for this layer. The browser verifier retains its hard-coded package and dist paths. The access and complete reproduction gap is real, but does not falsify the past author run. Deferred to shared placard/reach work under board note 81816d; the previously cited layer note 33677e is absent from the current board ledger. The directing instance must issue a layer note using the NOTE NEEDED paragraph in research/assay-line/queue-1014c/zero-years-deep/repair-report.md and replace PENDING. A complete portable reader recipe exceeds a few-word local repair.

## Remaining work

The generated public/checks/research/zero-years-deep/data.mjs mirror still contains the old dataset. Its shared publisher also updates public/checks/manifest.json and the check index; this task forbids shared-file edits. The live layer and canonical source are corrected, but the mirror requires the directing instance's shared publication pass. No media was rendered or re-encoded. The published OG image was visually inspected and contains only the supported fossil-depth opening, not the obsolete 1980s label from the unused research template.