The word "won't" does not look logically formed

  • Thread starter symbolipoint
  • Start date
In summary: So the -el in label comes from the Latin word for "little" and is a diminutive. A label is a little bit of a bigger thing. A syllable is a little bit of a word. So, "label" is a little bit of "bell" and "syllable" is a little bit of "word".In summary, the contraction "won't" remains a holdover from Old English and is believed to have been popularized by English language writers and playwrights. It is a shortened version of "will not" and its spelling may have been influenced by pronunciation. It is not to be confused with the word "wont", which means habit.
  • #1
symbolipoint
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Gold Member
7,270
1,763
I've been curious about "won't" for a long time. I checked in Wikipedia to look for some explanation but nothing found was too clear.

If "won't" is to be the contraction for "WILL NOT", then the letters do not occur in the correct order. Why the o before the n? More logical should be something like "willn't" or "win't"; but neither or other is the way the contraction is done. It is done and said as "won't". I am guessing that the reason is because "won't" is eaier to say, so the pronounciation dictated the spelling.

I am interested in what the English-language linguistics people can say about this.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #3
It is simply a copy of don't adapted for future tense, I guess.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #4
Googling
"won't" etymology
produces lots of results.
 
  • Like
Likes TeethWhitener
  • #5
George Jones said:
Googling

produces lots of results.
Honestly, I just googled "won't"
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and George Jones
  • #6
Not a linguist myself but worked with many.
symbolipoint said:
I've been curious about "won't" for a long time. {snip}
I am interested in what the English-language linguistics people can say about this.
Be satisfied that the contraction "won't" remains a holdover from Old English.

Most likely one or more popular English language playwrights such as William Shakespeare or Christopher Marlowe or early writers in English such as Thomas Moore or Robert Fludd, to name a few authors, preferred this word usage or had a character use "won't" in place of "shan't" (shall not) in order to demonstrate common status by word usage.

When English scholars finally standardized spelling and usage a few hundred years later, "won't" remained in the lexicon as an acceptable contraction while "ain't" (are not) became vulgar and many other common Old English expressions simply dropped from popular use. Reading books published in English before the 20th C. or modern novels that use old forms such as Geordie, familiarize the reader with middle Old English. Be prepared to read Latin in scholarly texts and French in many novels.
 
  • #7
Klystron said:
Most likely one or more popular English language playwrights such as William Shakespeare or Christopher Marlowe or early writers in English such as Thomas Moore or Robert Fludd, to name a few authors, preferred this word usage or had a character use "won't" in place of "shan't" (shall not) in order to demonstrate common status by word usage.
I learned shan't at school ...
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #8
Probably a form of "wouldn't".
 
  • #9
Not to be confused with wont.

First learned that one from Vernes' 20,000 Leagues, wherein our ersatz heroes in Nemo's iron contraption are in danger of drowning under the Arctic Ice sheet for won't of air.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #10
The word "won't" does not look logically formed

Unlike the entire rest of the language?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes sysprog, Nugatory, phinds and 9 others
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
Unlike the entire rest of the language?

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
- James Nicholl
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and dextercioby
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
Not to be confused with wont.

First learned that one from Vernes' 20,000 Leagues, wherein our ersatz heroes in Nemo's iron contraption are in danger of drowning under the Arctic Ice sheet for won't of air.

That should be "want of air" surely? "Wont" is a habit. As in Captain Nemo was won't to roam the depths of the seven seas.
 
  • Like
Likes gmax137, Klystron and sysprog
  • #13
Won't could be thought of as short hand for will ought not to, as a polite refusal, if and when they spoke like that amongst the nobility, and it was shortened by the common folks for fair usage, and then it makes perfect logical sense.
 
  • #15
The word "won't" does not look logically formed

And "formed" should be spelled "formduh"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Haha
Likes 256bits
  • #16
Stephen Tashi said:
And "formed" should be spelled "formduh"
better yet, "formd"
 
  • Haha
Likes 256bits
  • #17
Some 18th century poets were won't to use an apostrophe in the place of the 'e' in the penultimate position in such words, in order to preserve the singularity of the syllable:

Then was the serpent temple form'd, image of infinite
Shut up in finite revolutions, and man became an Angel;
Heaven a mighty circle turning; God a tyrant crown'd.​

William Blake Europe a Prophecy (1794) lines 21-23
 
  • Informative
Likes Klystron
  • #18
From Byron's poem "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage":

Lo! where the Giant on the mountain stands,​
His blood-red tresses deep'ning in the sun,​
With death-shot glowing in his fiery hands,​
And eye that scorcheth all it glares upon,—​
Restless it rolls, now fix'd, and now anon​
Flashing afar,—and at his iron feet​
Destruction cowers to mark what deeds are done;​
For on this morn three potent Nations meet,​
To shed before his Shrine the blood he deems most sweet.​
— Canto the First, Stanza XXXIX (lines 423–431)
The wikipedia entry describes the lengths taken by English language poets to meet the strictures imposed by adherence to rhyme and meter, as was their wont.
 
  • #19
sysprog said:
in order to preserve the singularity of the syllable:

Which brings up the question of why "syllable" isn't spelled "syllabell". A similar question for all the "able" words - table, ajustable, comfortable etc. At least "label" looks right.
 
  • #20
fresh_42 said:
It is simply a copy of don't adapted for future tense, I guess.
I doubt it. @TeethWhitener's link in post #2 is likely the best reason. There is some logic in English, but the logic comes from a variety or source languages with sometimes conflicting rules.
Vanadium 50 said:
Unlike the entire rest of the language?
Right.
DaveC426913 said:
We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
English has borrowed words from many languages. Here are some lesser-known loan words and the languages they're derived from.
  • kayak, anorak, nunatak (a rock that protrudes through glacial ice) - Inuit
  • dungaree, dinghy, dugong, thug, cashmere -- Hindi
  • amok, bamboo, compound (as a group of buildings), gingham -- Malay
  • jumbo, safari -- Swahili
  • cacao, avocado, chili, chocolate, coyote -- Nahuatl
  • bazaar, khaki, spinach -- Persian

Not to mention lots and lots of words derived from Native American tribes -- raccoon (Powhatan), hogan (Navaho), teepee (Lakota Sioux), and others.

Stephen Tashi said:
At least "label" looks right.
How about "ladle"?
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and symbolipoint
  • #21
Mark44 said:
How about "ladle"?
I usually stumble over fiber.
 
  • #22
fresh_42 said:
I usually stumble over fiber.
You mean fibre, of course.

Like litre and metre. :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes symbolipoint
  • #23
DaveC426913 said:
You mean fibre, of course.

Like litre and metre. :wink:
The French say at least what they write: table, not tabel.
 
  • #24
fresh_42 said:
The French at least say what they write: table, not tabel.
Heh. I like that. I'm going to start writing all my correspondence using British/Canadian spellings for lable, decible, reble and lible.
 
  • #25
DaveC426913 said:
Heh. I like that. I'm going to start writing all my correspondence using British/Canadian spellings for lable, decible, reble and lible.
And the Tower of Bable?
 
  • #26
fresh_42 said:
I usually stumble over fiber.

You shouldn't shuffle your feet. Take higher steps.
 
  • Haha
Likes phinds
  • #27
fresh_42 said:
The French say at least what they write: table, not tabel.
How about monsieur, s'il vous plait, and Qu'est-ce que c'est? for starters?
 
  • #28
Mark44 said:
How about monsieur, s'il vous plait, and Qu'est-ce que c'est? for starters?
I meant especially the 'le' vs. 'el' and 're' vs. 'er' situation. I assume that part of my trouble with certain words comes from the difference between french and english: die Faser = la fibre = the fiber. Or it simply looks too german (Fieber = fever) and I overcompensate.
 
  • #29
DaveC426913 said:
You mean fibre, of course.

Like litre and metre. :wink:
and centre...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes DaveC426913
  • #30
symbolipoint said:
The word "won't" does not look logically formed
It ain't. Get over it.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes 256bits, MathematicalPhysicist, Mark44 and 1 other person
  • #31
phinds said:
It ain't. Get over it.
Where did ain't come from.
Used to mean "are not", but now you get the ruler for using it.
Well , maybe not now, but at one time, when teachers had the powre pohwa.

EDIT: changed power to a Boston accent.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Likes Klystron
  • #32
256bits said:
Where did ain't come from.
Used to mean "are not", but now you get the ruler for using it.
Well , maybe not now, but at one time, when teachers had the powre.
The Wikipedia Ain't article covers this well enough -- It contains a reference to 'rhoticity' -- 'whether' or 'whethə' the 'r' is pronounced or not, when it immediately follows, but does not immediately precede, another vowel -- fascinating fodder for amateur philologists.
 
  • Like
Likes 256bits
  • #33
256bits said:
Used to mean "are not", but now you get the ruler for using it.
Originally "ain't" was a contraction of "am not" per the Wiki article that @sysprog referred to. More recently it has become a contraction for am not, is not, and are not.

As a side note, I was watching an Irish series called "Blood" and one character said "I amn't," something I'd never heard before.
 
  • Like
Likes 256bits
  • #34
Syntactic quirks from the language that brought you sentences like
'James, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Haha
Likes MathematicalPhysicist
<h2>What does the word "won't" mean?</h2><p>The word "won't" is a contraction of "will not". It is used to express a refusal or unwillingness to do something in the future.</p><h2>Why does the word "won't" not look logically formed?</h2><p>The word "won't" may not look logically formed because it is a contraction of two words, "will" and "not". The apostrophe represents the omission of the letter "i" in "will" and the letter "o" in "not".</p><h2>How is the word "won't" used in a sentence?</h2><p>The word "won't" is typically used in a sentence to express a negative future action, such as "I won't be attending the party tonight."</p><h2>Is the word "won't" considered proper English?</h2><p>Yes, the word "won't" is considered proper English and is commonly used in both spoken and written language.</p><h2>Are there any other contractions similar to "won't"?</h2><p>Yes, there are many other contractions in the English language, such as "can't" (cannot), "shouldn't" (should not), and "wouldn't" (would not).</p>

What does the word "won't" mean?

The word "won't" is a contraction of "will not". It is used to express a refusal or unwillingness to do something in the future.

Why does the word "won't" not look logically formed?

The word "won't" may not look logically formed because it is a contraction of two words, "will" and "not". The apostrophe represents the omission of the letter "i" in "will" and the letter "o" in "not".

How is the word "won't" used in a sentence?

The word "won't" is typically used in a sentence to express a negative future action, such as "I won't be attending the party tonight."

Is the word "won't" considered proper English?

Yes, the word "won't" is considered proper English and is commonly used in both spoken and written language.

Are there any other contractions similar to "won't"?

Yes, there are many other contractions in the English language, such as "can't" (cannot), "shouldn't" (should not), and "wouldn't" (would not).

Similar threads

  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
867
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
8
Views
817
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
3K
Back
Top