Why is "won't" not "wo'n't"?
wo'n't
<Why is it "want" instead of "wa'nt"?>
I think you misunderstood the question, my imitator.
I think you misunderstood the question, my imitator.
I guess one apostrophe is enough.
BTW, how many words have two apostrophes?
BTW, how many words have two apostrophes?
Why the frarcking o anyway cuz? Where da frarkin hell'd tha frarkin o come from ma dawg? Yo man I don see no o in WILL NOT , well der iz an o but it after da n not befor it ma man, yo you got me ma sick dawg from da hood yo
<BTW, how many words have two apostrophes? >
would/should/mightn't've
Fish 'n' Chips
would/should/mightn't've
Fish 'n' Chips
Robson 'n' Jerome. Dey iz frarkin wicked. Sound o der hood dawg. Peace out.
It should read "won't" - which is simply a contraction of "will not"....no other form will do.
Similarly, "shan't" - "shall not"; "can't" for "can not" or "cannot" which is the most used form in this case. There are a host of others shuch as "wouldn't" "couldn't" "shouldn't" etc - you just have to be carse where you place the apostrophe - which usually replaces the "o" in the negative "not".
Wont is a different word in its own right - meaning the habit of doing something on a regular basis, or something you are accustomed to doing in this way. "It is my wont to ramble on endlessly....."
Don't you just love the English for inventing this glorious Language?
Similarly, "shan't" - "shall not"; "can't" for "can not" or "cannot" which is the most used form in this case. There are a host of others shuch as "wouldn't" "couldn't" "shouldn't" etc - you just have to be carse where you place the apostrophe - which usually replaces the "o" in the negative "not".
Wont is a different word in its own right - meaning the habit of doing something on a regular basis, or something you are accustomed to doing in this way. "It is my wont to ramble on endlessly....."
Don't you just love the English for inventing this glorious Language?
<<Don't you just love the English for inventing this glorious Language? >>
Nah, but I do love the Romans for inventing all the words that fill this 'glorious' language.
Nah, but I do love the Romans for inventing all the words that fill this 'glorious' language.
<you just have to be carse where you place the apostrophe - which usually replaces the "o" in the negative "not".>
Yes, Damien, but why is there and "o" in "won't"? And what does "carse" mean?
Yes, Damien, but why is there and "o" in "won't"? And what does "carse" mean?
I imagine because all those apostrophes get a little overwhelming and tedious. People tend to simplify over time, as Trimac points out. It's enough to have one to indicate that letters have been left out.
I would guess that "will not" became "won't" because "willn't" is damn hard to pronounce. And I believe there is a tendency in some British dialects to shift L's into a W-sound anyway, and vice-versa. Maybe there's a paralell in that word.
I would guess that "will not" became "won't" because "willn't" is damn hard to pronounce. And I believe there is a tendency in some British dialects to shift L's into a W-sound anyway, and vice-versa. Maybe there's a paralell in that word.
Won't used to (a long time ago) be written wo'n't since apostrophes can replace more than just the o in a negation. For example o'clock is of the clock or 'twas for it was, or I'll is I will.
It comes from the first person present indicative "I woll", which was current even to some extent until the 19th century, but was in standard use in the 16th century. It is a contraction of "wonnot" which in turn is a contraction of "woll not". The second and third persons were (and of course still are) "will", and originally there was a "wynnot" but "wonnot" won out and replaced it for all persons, at some point in the 16th century
It comes from the first person present indicative "I woll", which was current even to some extent until the 19th century, but was in standard use in the 16th century. It is a contraction of "wonnot" which in turn is a contraction of "woll not". The second and third persons were (and of course still are) "will", and originally there was a "wynnot" but "wonnot" won out and replaced it for all persons, at some point in the 16th century