Why is the word "won't not "Willn't"?

Question

Do not = don't
They are = They're
Has not = hasn't, etc, etc,etc
Why does "will not" become "won't" - where does the O come from?

Princess Ashley - exactly.

Would not = wouldn't

Answer 1

Those who have noted that it's easier to say than "willn't" are probably on to something, though that doesn't show where the form came from.

It is from "woll not" (No, it isNOT from "would not" which contracts to "wouldn't", tub that O in "would" is a bit of a clue.)

Here's what happened:

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"

Note too that the "o"-type vowel is still used in another form of this verb-- "would".

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mwont.html

Answer 2

OK, everyone, I know when I’m outnumbered! Apologies for having taken so long to produce the answer to this one.

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.

As several of you have pointed out, there ought to be another apostrophe in there, as there should be with shan’t, marking the missing l or ll, but it seems to have been extremely rare, even more so than the second apostrophe in sha’n’t. One notable user was Lewis Carroll, who adopted wo’n’t and sha’n’t in his Sylvie and Bruno books, as well as other non-standard spellings: “She says I wo’n’t learn my lessons. And I tells her, over and over, I ca’n’t learn ‘em”. Carroll wrote in the introduction to Sylvie and Bruno Concluded: “Other critics have objected to certain innovations in spelling, such as ca’n’t and wo’n’t and traveler. In reply, I can only plead my firm conviction that popular usage is wrong”. His attempt to re-educate the English public was unsuccessful.

Answer 3

Hi.
It's because corporate-religious idiots are the ones who decided (a long time ago) how you are gonna speak the English language. They are also the same dicks that decided we are going to have multiple streets and towns with the exact same name, stupidly planted in an area the size of several dozen square miles.

Answer 4

Maybe back in the Day (Old English) the word Willn't got confused with Willing, so to differentiate they changed the 'i' to a 'o' so it was clear, to if you 'would' or 'would not'!

Answer 5

Great question. Here’s one answer.

The future of “to be” in Middle English was sometimes not “I will” but “I wolle”.
Just as “can not” became “cannot” and then “can’t”,
so “wolle not” became “wollnot” and then “won’t”.

Fulle detailys wolle be founde atte: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mwont.html

Or as Chaucer used to say: So quoth myn auctour

Answer 6

'Won't' is a contraction of 'would not', not 'will not

Edit: Wow, I'm wrong, just looked it up, it is a contraction of 'will not' - I stand corrected. In any event contractions, like most words, are just derived from usage, and 'willn't' is horrible to pronounce - so that'll be why it never happened.

Answer 7

Actually guesswest777 and l0bster_quadrille and all the others too, won't IS a contraction of will not. Wouldn't is a contraction of would not. As to the question, sorry I have no idea. :(

Answer 8

Because the English Language wasn't thought through well enough!

Answer 9

Ok, so if Won't is Would Not, then the next question is - why don't we use Willn't? Just because it sounds silly?

Answer 10

Won't is would not, for your information.
Anyway, there's a famous saying and I quote:
'English is a funny language'.
Willn't is neither pleasing to the ear, difficult to comprehend to, not easy to pronounce as compared to won't and it doesn't sound that ecstatic either. There are many more cases except this one but it goes on the way it is.
Somethings are just meant to be.