A consensus was only reached in the 16th century, when we finally became „will“ and became our „dignity.“ However, as RD points out, the most popular form of negative verb did not remain. This was attributed to wonnot, who later turned modern English into „won`t“. But while the right form of will was still to be debated, people still had to be able to express (i.e. no) the concept of denied futures. Not surprisingly, there have been rather inventive ways of expressing it, such as.B. nill – from which the term willy-nilly (literally „will he, will`t he“ in Middle English) is derived. In general, however, the speakers simply didn`t add depending on the shape of the will/wool/wave/ool they were using. This type of negation, which was used with the wool variant, led to wonnot amalgam and was eventually reduced orthographically to forms such as wo`t or won`t. Well, as a grammatical apologist that I am, I don`t agree that English has become lazy with apostrophes and spellings. On the contrary, English spelling is becoming more and more complicated as the pronunciation of words moves away from what they were when our spelling was repaired at the time. I think we all deserve a pat on the back because we kept the spelling after losing the silent velar fricative that once started the word, and for successfully learning the different sound sequences that this master of disguise can hide (trough, trough, plow, through, hard, etc.). And anyway, it`s not the language that has become sloppy; they are its practitioners.
There are still well-established rules about apostrophes, for example, to distinguish possessives in the singular and plural, and for most contractions, it`s pretty well etched in the stone where apostrophes go – it`s just that people don`t always check their uses. […] Read more about it, read this article that explains in more detail the madness that English can be! They will, will not […] You won`t like it, but it`s true! | cloud.translator Recently, the folks at Reader`s Digest were kind enough to break it all down for us. It turns out that in Old English, the verb willan (which meant to want or want) had two forms: wil for the present and would for the past. Eventually, the pronunciation evolved from wel wool to ool wool. Etymologically, there is therefore an argument for contracting „will“ and „no“ as „will not want“. Still, some vocal commentators have whispered about its use. Merriam-Webster`s Dictionary of English Usage describes it as „one of the most irregular negative contractions that became popular in the 17th century.“ Others are „don`t“, „han`t“, „shan`t“ and „an`t“ (an early form of „ain`t“). They didn`t understand that what I was looking for for this site was to waste my time.
I just wanted to know what is not, because my English language is not so good.but I have no help from here.in my opinion it is a stupid site. „Wont“ is a very different word from „wont not“. Willt means to have a tendency to do something, for example .B. „she has bitten her lip as she is used to when she is nervous.“ […] wool, but not muscular. Just another strange fact about English. Absurd Apostrophes VII: Why won`t it work? Motivated grammar ____ Why, you ask, do we combine „will“ and „no“ as „doesn`t want“ instead of „doesn`t want“? Here`s Merriam-Webster`s explanation: Of course, some embroiderers still feel like not all contractions are quite. Well, we ask you to disagree. As we wrote on the blog, contractions are impeccably good in English. However, let`s address the main problem in this comment: why isn`t writing a contraction of the will? Is it just that modern people are lazy? Or a sequence of O and I keys adjacent to a QWERTY keyboard? No. In fact, we are not even asking the right question. The fact is that the question is wrong. The will is not a contraction of the will. It is a contraction of wool that does not want or does not want or does not want.
Certainly, if the will is not derived from the will, it should be The will will will not be. Will not be a separate word in my opinion, even if it is not for rent, spell the thing correctly. The English language has become very lazy with apostrophes and spellings. It really annoys me. When we say we`re not going to do it, we`re actually saying we`re not going to do it. The form with the apostrophe is a contraction, such as „cannot“ and „cannot“. We owe the „o“ in won not to a form of the sixteenth-century word: wonnot. Why does the „will“ change to „where“? That`s not really what he does.
That is, we do not change it, our linguistic ancestors did. We simply inherited it from them as a unit. But there was a reason for the „where“ at first. When you think about what it takes to pronounce the word „don`t want to,“ it`s not that surprising at all. By the way, the verb „will“ has been written in all sorts of ways since it first appeared as wyllan about 1,000 in Aelfric`s grammar, an Introduction in Old English to Latin grammar. […] Unfortunately, if you look at the historical context, he doesn`t become the rebel I made him be. „Don`t want“ is not a contraction of „don`t want to.“ It is a contraction of „woll not“ or „wol not“ or „wonnot“ (source). […] „Won`t was abbreviated from the beginning wonnot, which in turn was formed from wool (or wol), a variant form of will, and no.“ Take, for example, the contraction for „doesn`t want to.“ If it were normal (like „couldn`t“ and „didn`t have“), it would be shortened to „doesn`t want“ instead of „doesn`t want.“ If you`re wondering where the logic lies in all of this, you`re not alone. And like most things related to grammar, the answer goes back centuries.
Yes, at that time it was not yet clear how to pronounce or write the modal verb that finally came to us as a will. The Oxford English Dictionary cites 33 different spellings only for the 1st/3rd person singular form, which ranges from will to wave to ool to wol. Some of these uses were more dispersed than others, and it seems that the great division eventually narrowed down to typical uses compared to wool-like uses that lasted until the mid-1800s, before the modal market plugged in. Woll ~ German desire (indicative and first and third person plural), although will coincides with Will (first and third person singular). I mean, finally, there`s a similarity that can at least be seen if you go back to the ancestors of those languages like Old English and Old High German. In a previous article on apostrophization, I asked why contraction is not for the will where is not, with apostrophes at each position where the letters have been eliminated. In doing so, I avoided the obvious and much more difficult question of where the devil comes from. Why won`t he do it and won`t win or win? I had hoped to avoid this, but I was called by a commenter on this previous post, which slows down the patterns of use of English spelling: Summary: will not come from will not, but rather from woll not, an alternative form that existed until the mid-1800s. Will will remove the wool, but will not become muscular.
Just another strange fact about English. So, it doesn`t give us the same meaning as a contraction that it doesn`t (and you`ll find that the apostrophe is correctly placed to indicate the omission of wonnot`s no). Well, why didn`t Woll survive and gain prominence through an equally reasonable will? I guess it`s because will is not a difficult word to pronounce. Why bother pronouncing a word that ends with three consonants when you could pronounce a word that ends with only two? The will is not attested; Charlotte Bronte and Charles Dickens loved it, and you are also welcome. But I would strongly advise against using it in situations where you don`t want people to think you`re a Victorian writer lost in the wrong century. In Old English, there were two forms of the verb willan – wil – in the present and would – in the past. Over the following centuries, there were many jumps back and forth between these vowels (and others) in all forms of the word. At different times and in different places, „Wille“ came out like wulle, wole, wool, well, wel, wile, wyll and even ull and ool.
There was less variation in the contractually agreed form. At least from the 16. In the twentieth century, the preferred form was not obtained from „woll not“, with occasional deviations later for winnot, wunnot or the does not want expected. In the ever-changing landscape that is English, „will“ won the battle of the „woles/wulles/ools“, but for the negative contraction, „wonnot“ simply prevailed and continued to come together to form the „won`t“ we use today. Thank you. I realized this problem the other day when I was talking to my daughter about work. I had no explanation as to why this would not be the case instead of not doing so. Now I do. A: „Don`t want to“ is a perfectly acceptable contraction of „will“ and „no.“ However, it is a strange bird that has sometimes been condemned for not looking quite like other contractions.
Most contractions in English are quite simple: they are, they are; he would do it, he would do it; is not, is not; we go, we go.. .