As "would not" can be shortened to "wouldn't" , why don't we also say "willn't"?

Answer 1

Actually, there was a time when "willn't" AND "won't" and several other forms were used. "Won't" apparently won out because it was easier to say.

So where did they get this odd form "won't" ?

It happened something like this:

In Old and Middle English, the form of the verb changed according to whether it was used for the first, second and third person, singular and plural,etc. Many examples are found in the Oxford English Dictionary -- forms like wile, willo, uillo, will, wulle, wule, wolle, woll, and wool
"Wull" and "woll" were still in common use in the 19th century, before "will" finally competely won out as THE standard form.

For the negative English had the same basic forms --such as wynnot, wonnot, woonnot, wo'not, wonot, winnot, we'n't, willn't, willot, won't. Some of these, again, were still in use in the 19th century (Charlotte Bronte used "willn't" in an 1849 book.) But in THIS case, the form "won't" ended up winning the field.

Besides "won't" being a bit easier to say (L + N is more difficult to pronounce - which is why "shall not" became "shan't"), people may have been influenced by similar contracted forms, esp."don't"

Also note that an "o"-type vowel is found in the related form of the verb you have already mentioned -- "would".

Answer 2

We don't want to sound like hillbillies. I think it's just hard to say that many consenents in a row without a vowel.

Answer 3

it's just so much easier to say wont. right? and plus, adding will'nt to the dictonary would just defy the whole english language, and grammar rules

Answer 4

Because it's too hard to say!

Answer 5

cuz it irregular or something, cuz our language is weird and it just is :P

Answer 6

its not gramatically correct

Answer 7

i do

Answer 8

we have won't