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.
Why? Well it is a bit easier to say (L + N is more difficult to pronounce - which is why "shall not" became "shan't"), and perhaps it was influenced by similar contracted forms, esp."don't"
Also note that an "o"-type vowel is found in another form of this verb, "would".
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mwont.html
2006-10-10 08:53:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by bruhaha 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
"Won't" is not a word. It is a contraction. It is the combination of "will" and "not". It means "will not".
Origin of "will": before 900; ME willen, OE wyllan; c. D willen, G wollen, ON vilja, Goth wiljan; akin to L velle to wish]
Origin of "not": 1275–1325; ME; weak var. of nought]
2006-10-10 08:47:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Otis F 7
·
1⤊
1⤋