If the contraction for IS NOT is ISN'T, and . . . .?

Question

for DO NOT it's DON'T, and ARE NOT is AREN'T, why is the contraction for WILL NOT, WON'T instead of WILLN'T?

Answer 1

Actually willn’t is not unknown historically as a contracted form of will not, though it has never been common; Charlotte Brontë used it in Shirley in 1849 in order to represent local Yorkshire speech: “That willn’t wash, Miss”. It turns up also in Mary Barton by Elizabeth Gaskell: “No, indeed I willn’t tell, come what may”.

So why the o in the contraction when it should be i? The answer lies in the irregularity of the verb will: it varied a great deal in different places and at different times. Though the present tense was often wil or wille, there was a period when it appeared as wol or wolle; this was especially common in the Midlands of England in the late medieval period, and may have been an unconscious imitation of the simple past tense, which was spelled and said with an o as standard. For some reason, though the present tense eventually standardised on will, the contraction of the negative settled down to be won’t, using the vowel from the other form.

Answer 2

Because win't is too weird? Actually, it's because the future tense of the word be, in Old and Middle English, changed with first, second and third person, singular and plural, formal and informal. (All variations are from the Oxford English Dictionary.) The first and third person present forms have shifted among wile, willo, uillo, will, wulle, wule, wolle, woll, and wool for a millenium. The second person went from wilt to wult to woot before becoming obsolete. The plural was something like willen for a bit there. As late as the 19th century, wull and woll were in common use.

Furthermore, the negation, which we might write as will not, was often one word (as is cannot, still used in the 20th century), spelled wynnot, wonnot, woonnot, wo'not, wonot, winnot, we'n't, willn't, willot, and of course won't. As late as the 1849, Charlotte Bronte wrote in Shirley, "That willn't wash, Miss."

Anyway, woll was actually a pretty common form of the word (the past tense of will, if you think about it, is still would rather than willed in most forms), and as the point of contractions is brevity, won't was obviously superior to willn't, saving a syllable in speech and two letters in writing.

Answer 3

Willn't was acceptable even in the time of the Brontes which was 19th Century, woll was a dervative from Old English willen and was in use. The choice really became between the two and being as won't saves a syllable over willn't in speach and several letters in writing it became the natural common choice.

Answer 4

Well, that's one of the reasons English is one of the most difficult languages to learn, even for those who speak it primarily. There are so many little exceptions to the rule that it's nearly impossible for most people to keep track and get it correct each and every time. I guess whoever made the contraction of those two words like the way won't sounded as opposed to willn't.

Answer 5

I remember I answered the same question before.

Here is my reply:

"English is a Spoken Language!

They use what are all 'EASY on YOUR tongue'.

That is why 'Amn't I?' became 'Ain't'

The same way, Willn't' is more a tongue-twister., whereas, 'won't' is easy on your tongue.

Usage determines how the expressions should be & not the streo-typed formation.

Even those who learn English as a Foreign Language don't find it difficult to follow. No need to tell about native speakers!

Source(s):

Reasoning!

Answer 6

Because willn't sounds silly, Silly.

Answer 7

Perhaps it was for a short while, and then got contracted to something more pronounceable. Remember that "won't" is one of the first terms a child learns, long before they are aware of the grammatical concept of contractions. It's usually about age two, in fact.

Answer 8

Willn't just sounds stupid...duh! lol

Answer 9

We also say things like "I am, aren't I?" It doesn't make any sense but it's the wonders of the English language.

Answer 10

Because then it would be easier to say will not in stead of will'nt. So what would be the point?