[esbranson]

Does this seem like a natural way of speaking: "I am grated when ever it is twelve of the clock and I can not fall on sleep."? If you want an example lesson in language drift, go to Rome and try and talk to people in Latin.

"Wanna" is called a "contraction" or "slang", probably originating from "want to" and "want a" both pronounced like "want'ta". (For example, I am from Sacramento, which is often pronounced as "Sacra-minnow". Also see "shoulda woulda coulda".) Quite common in Northern California at least. Its probably best described as Internet English. The real question is: Does it make it harder to understand? Does it obstruct the goal of communicating information? Or do you normally speak like a 17th Century aristocrat, using archaic words that very few understand, but are probably technically on point? (Sorry, that are veritably apposite.)

[yetfeo]

The way I speak and the way I write are different. Avoiding slang like 'wanna' when writing is good.

[djur]

Not if you're trying to write in a conversational tone, which is common for many blog post.

'Wanna' has a particular confrontational connotation (possibly a joking one) that I believe was desired here. 'Want to' wouldn't have had the same effect.

[esbranson]

That's all well and good. But such a statement begs the question: Is the inverse true? Is using slang like 'wanna' bad? And does it obstruct the goal of communicating information, etc.? Does using technically correct, but archaic, words obstruct communication, and does that make their usage bad?

I ask because I would like to explore the reasoning behind the conclusion that such words are bad. If they are bad because they hinder effective communication, then so are words that are uncommonly known, I argue. Which seems to pose the argument that we should best speak like simpletons because simpletons, or people that are too pedantic, may not understand the meaning.