In a previous post about apostrophication, I asked why the contraction won’t for will not isn’t wo’n’t, with apostrophes in each position where letters have been elided. In so doing, I skirted the obvious and much harder question of where the devil that o comes from. Why is it won’t and not win’t or willn’t? I had hoped to avoid this, but I have been called out by a commenter on that previous post, who slags the usage patterns of English spellers:
Surely if won’t is derived from will not it should be Willn’t not Won’t. Won’t should be a word of its own in my oppinion even if it’s not at lease spell the thing correctly. The english language has become very lazy with apostrophes and spellings. It really bugs me.
Now, as the grammatical apologist I am, I have to disagree that English has become lazy with apostrophes and spellings. If anything, English spelling is getting more complicated as word pronunciations continue to slide away from what they were when our orthography got fixed back in the day. I think that we all deserve pats on the back for retaining the spelling knight after losing the silent velar fricative that once started the word, and for successfully mastering learning the various sound sequences that that master of disguise ough can hide (bough, trough, plough, through, tough, etc.). And anyway, it’s not the language that has gotten sloppy; it’s its practitioners. There remain well-established rules about apostrophes to distinguish singular and plural possessives, for instance, and for most contractions it’s pretty well set in stone where the apostrophes go — it’s just that people don’t always check their usages.
That said, let’s address the primary issue in this comment: why write won’t as a contraction of will not? Is it just that modern people are lazy? Or some consequence of the O and I keys abutting on a QWERTY keyboard? Nope. In fact, we’re not even asking the right question. The fact is that the question is wrong. Won’t is not a contraction of will not. It’s a contraction of woll not or wol not or wonnot.
Yes, back in the day it wasn’t yet set how to pronounce or write the modal verb that eventually came to us as will. The Oxford English Dictionary cites 33 different spellings just for the 1st/3rd person singular form, running the gamut from will to welle to ool to wol. Some of these usages were more scattered than others, and it seems like the big division eventually came down to will-type usages versus woll-type usages, which lasted into the mid-1800s before will cornered the modal market.
But while the correct form for will was still open for debate, people still had to be able to express the concept of negated futures (i.e., will not). Unsurprisingly, there were some pretty inventive ways of saying it, such as nill — from which the term willy-nilly (literally meaning “will he, won’t he” in Middle English) is derived. Generally, though, speakers just added not after whatever form of will/woll/welle/ool they were using. This type of negation, used with the woll variant, led to the amalgam wonnot and eventually got further reduced orthographically to forms like wo’not or won’t.
So that gives us won’t as a contraction meaning the same as will not (and, you’ll note, the apostrophe is correctly placed to indicate omission of no from wonnot). Now why is it that won’t outlived woll and rose to prominence over the equally reasonable willn’t? I’d speculate that it’s because willn’t is a hard word to pronounce. Why would you strain yourself to pronounce a word ending with three consonants when you could pronounce a word that ends with only two? Willn’t does get attested; Charlotte Bronte and Charles Dickens liked it, and you’re welcome to too. But I would strongly advise against using it in situations where you don’t want people to think that you are a Victorian writer lost in the wrong century.
Summary: won’t doesn’t come from will not but rather from woll not, an alternate form that existed into the mid-1800s. Will muscled out woll, but won’t muscled out willn’t. Just another weird bit fact about English.
***
The Preposterous Apostrophes series as it stands:
- I: Possessives (08/29/2007)
- II: Pluralization (09/03/2007)
- III: The Kings of England’s (09/07/2007)
- IV: History Lesson (09/10/2007)
- V: Contractions (09/11/2007)
- VI: A Wrinkle (09/27/2007)
- VII: Why Won’t Willn’t Work? (04/03/2008)
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 28, 2008 at 7:02 am
ali
you did’t understand that what i was searching for this site waiste my time.i just wanted to know what is wont .because my english language is not so good.but i did,t get help from here.in my view it’s a foolish site.
July 28, 2008 at 7:07 am
Syed Faisal Ali
actually i wrote up bad word’s .sory for that.actually i want to learn english but my english language is not so good.if any one can help me .then contact my on my id .(ali_faisal18@yahoo.com)take care guy,s for your kind information i m a pakistani.and my nick is tanha.
December 28, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Will not - LDS Mormon Forums
[…] woll, but won’t muscled out willn’t. Just another weird bit fact about English." Preposterous Apostrophes VII: Why Won’t Willn’t Work? Motivated Grammar __________________ @->–*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*–<-@ ~Life is too precious […]
April 6, 2009 at 3:05 pm
frakturfreak
woll ~ German wollen(indicative and first and third person plural), although will corresponds with will (first and third person singular). I mean at last there is a similiraty, which is at least seen when goes back to the ancestor of these languages like Old English and Old High German.
September 3, 2009 at 7:38 pm
M
Woooo! Thanks for this, the word won’t has always annoyed me. I feel better about it now that I have an explanation :)
April 6, 2010 at 1:30 am
Graham
How did you get to wonnot from wol not? Doesn’t wol not yield wo’n’t ?
March 21, 2012 at 10:57 am
Jason
Why would we not be able to use “shan’t” instead? (other than possibly sounding pretentious)
April 7, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Monica
Thank you.
May 2, 2012 at 1:38 pm
April
Thanks. I realized this issue when I was discussing contractions with my daughter the other day. I had no explanation for why it’s won’t instead of willn’t. Now I do.
March 1, 2013 at 2:27 am
burko
I walnut!
March 12, 2013 at 4:40 am
You willn´t like it but it´s true! | cloud.translator
[…] more on this, read this article, which explains in more depth the craziness that can be English! You will, won´t […]
March 15, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Stacey
What is wrong with you people? Your spelling mistakes and poor grammar are ridiculous!
September 5, 2013 at 11:38 am
Jacqueline A. Robison
I recently read an article where wont was used twice and I wondered if usage had eliminated the apostrophe or if the spelling was just incorrect.
November 22, 2014 at 3:13 pm
LC
“Wont” is an entirely different word to “won’t”. Wont means to have a tendency to do something e.g. “she bit her lip, as she is wont to do when nervous”.
December 2, 2018 at 2:28 am
Won’t you tell me why it’s true… – Els Dehaen
[…] Alas, if you look into the historical background “won’t” doesn’t turn out to be the rebel I have made him out to be. “Won’t” is not a contraction of “will not”. It is a contraction of “woll not” or “wol not” or “wonnot” (source). […]
March 3, 2019 at 3:51 am
Michael A. Danello
What is the story of 1) shan’t instead of 0pshalln’t for shall not or 2) ain’t for amn’t for am not. #1 is rarely seen and #2 is considered as improper.
September 25, 2019 at 12:23 pm
Miq Mils
So much for paragraphs.
December 17, 2022 at 2:59 pm
Rachel Warriner
The commenter lost me at “at lease”.🤦🏻♀️