jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (07/22/85)
Does anyone know how the contraction for "will not" came to be "won't"?
"Willn't" seems more logical.
--
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak
{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeffmmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/26/85)
At one time the form `nill' was available for "will not", or
more nearly "doesn't will [it]" -- since the relevant meaning of `will'
was "want, wish". Thus, to say "whether he wants to or not" you could
say `will he, nill he'. This also worked for other pronouns, e.g.
'will she nill she', but the version with he has survived down to today
as `willy nilly'.
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmariannucci@sjuvax.UUCP (iannucci) (07/27/85)
In article <565@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP writes: > Does anyone know how the contraction for "will not" came to be "won't"? > "Willn't" seems more logical. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) The word 'will' comes from the German verb 'wollen', meaning to want. (cf. also the English verb "to will" meaning basically the same thing). Actual- ly, the 'o' appears more often in the conjugation of that verb than the 'i', which is found only in the present tense. My best guess is that the 'o' in 'wollen' carried over into the English contraction. -- If I could walk THAT way... Dave Iannucci @ St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia [40 00' N 75 15' W] {{ihnp4 | ucbvax}!allegra | {psuvax1}!burdvax | astrovax}!sjuvax!iannucci
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (07/30/85)
In article <1216@sjuvax.UUCP> iannucci@sjuvax.UUCP (iannucci) writes: >In article <565@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP writes: >> Does anyone know how the contraction for "will not" came to be "won't"? >> "Willn't" seems more logical. > The word 'will' comes from the German verb 'wollen', meaning to want. >... My best guess is that the 'o' in >'wollen' carried over into the English contraction. English 'will' does not COME from German 'wollen'. They both come from the same Germanic verb 'welon'. -- +--------------+-------------------------------+ | Rob Bernardo | Pacific Bell | +--------------+ 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4E700 | | 415-823-2417 | San Ramon, California 94583 | +--------------+-------------------------------+---------+ | ihnp4!ptsfa!rob | | {nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob | +--------------------------------------------------------+
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (07/31/85)
>> Does anyone know how the contraction for "will not" came to be "won't"? >> "Willn't" seems more logical. -- Jeff Lichtman > > The word 'will' comes from the German verb 'wollen', meaning to want.(cf. >also the English verb "to will" meaning basically the same thing). Actual- >ly, the 'o' appears more often in the conjugation of that verb than the 'i', >which is found only in the present tense. My best guess is that the 'o' in >'wollen' carried over into the English contraction. -- Dave Iannucci I do not see how this is a reasonable explanation, in light of how insignificant the impact of German on English has been. Also note that `will', a modal auxiliary verb, is part of the structural vocabulary, and such words are typically native in most languages. If you check your dictionary, you'll probably see that `will' derives from Anglo-Saxon `willan'. No doubt, German `wollen' is related, but I cannot accept the statement that `will' comes from German! Therefore I offer some more idle speculation and handwaving of the most dubious sort. According to some old texts by Wright and Sweet, Middle English also had alternate unaccented forms with -o-, which apparently resulted from the labial influence of the preceding w- on the weak vowel. Eventually the -o- form spread to accented contexts as well. At a later point, the variation between wil/wol became fixed so that the -o- appeared only in the negative, which approached the modern form thru the phonetic steps below: wolnt => wowlnt => wownt Note the similarity below: folk => fowlk => fowk One weakness of this argument is that -l- drops out before <back vowel> + k, as in {walk, yolk..}, but not usually elsewhere. In its defense, one could point out that -l- in fact dropped out in {would, should, shan't} as well. Admittedly, this all sounds most speculative, and Wright/Sweet are hardly the latest word on such matters. Also note that commonly used words often follow exceptional paths. Sometimes this is due to change in stress, as in our 1st person singular pronoun, whose modern pronunciation apparently came about by repeated splits due to accentuation and levelings in four different periods: 1 2 3 4 accented ich - ich ii --- ay / \ [ii=long-i, ch as in church] unaccented ich - i ---- i ay Other times, analogy with unrelated forms can cause otherwise unexpected changes, and I would not be surprised if (don't) has had some effect on the selection of the modern form (won't), since they both often appear in similar contexts. As I said, idle speculation and handwaving... -michael
iannucci@sjuvax.UUCP (iannucci) (08/01/85)
In article <763@ptsfa.UUCP> rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) writes: >>> Does anyone know how the contraction for "will not" came to be "won't"? >>> "Willn't" seems more logical. >> The word 'will' comes from the German verb 'wollen', meaning to want. >>... My best guess is that the 'o' in 'wollen' carried over into the English >> contraction. > English 'will' does not COME from German 'wollen'. They both come from > the same Germanic verb 'welon'. As a matter of fact, wollen is indeed one of the words which contrib- uted to the existence of the English 'will'. 'Wellen' (the correct spelling) is merely one of the older forms of the word 'wollen'. I got this information from the OED, a source I think you'd be foolish to contest. A "normal" diction- ary that I checked cited the Old English 'wyllen', another one of the many listed in the OED. Perhaps I was a bit overzealous in my initial claim, but you will note that I admitted in the end to being unsure. -- If I could walk THAT way... Dave Iannucci @ St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia [40 00' N 75 15' W] {{ihnp4 | ucbvax}!allegra | {psuvax1}!burdvax | astrovax}!sjuvax!iannucci
iannucci@sjuvax.UUCP (iannucci) (08/04/85)
>>> Does anyone know how the contraction for "will not" came to be "won't"? >>> "Willn't" seems more logical. -- Jeff Lichtman >> The word 'will' comes from the German verb 'wollen', meaning to want. >> My best guess is that the 'o' in 'wollen' carried over into the English >> contraction. -- Dave Iannucci > I do not see how this is a reasonable explanation, in light of how > insignificant the impact of German on English has been. -- Mike Ellis I think I have learned a lesson here, which is not to lock horns with "old language buffs"! As I have admitted, I did start out a bit too dogmatically, when I wasn't in fact sure. I didn't mean to suggest that the 'o' in 'wollen' leaped clear across the Channel and landed in "won't" :-) But I have since been convinced by evidences found in the Oxford English Dictionary that that German verb has in fact played a role in the formation of our future tense modal auxiliary. These things I have said previously, and the main reason that I am replying is that, as one who has studied German (at the college level), I find your above statement patently ridiculous and uncharacteristic of someone who displays such an acquaintance with linguistics as you do in your article. I can't think of another language which has had more influence on English than German. Latin comes close, but not as close as German. English is, after all, a member of that family of Germanic or Teutonic languages. -- If I could walk THAT way... Dave Iannucci @ St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia [40 00' N 75 15' W] {{ihnp4 | ucbvax}!allegra | {psuvax1}!burdvax | astrovax}!sjuvax!iannucci
lambert@boring.UUCP (08/05/85)
>>> Does anyone know how the contraction for "will not" came to be "won't"? >>> "Willn't" seems more logical. -- Jeff Lichtman > > [...] > Therefore I offer some more idle speculation and handwaving of the most > dubious sort. > > According to some old texts by Wright and Sweet, Middle English also had > alternate unaccented forms with -o-, which apparently resulted from the > labial influence of the preceding w- on the weak vowel. Eventually the -o- > form spread to accented contexts as well. > > At a later point, the variation between wil/wol became fixed so that the > -o- appeared only in the negative, which approached the modern form thru > the phonetic steps below: > > wolnt => wowlnt => wownt > > -- Michael Ellis According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, there once was an intermediate form "wonnot", so the "l" was assimilated rather than dropped before the contraction took place. Lambert Meertens ...!{seismo,okstate,garfield,decvax,philabs}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam -- Lambert Meertens ...!{seismo,okstate,garfield,decvax,philabs}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam
lambert@boring.UUCP (08/05/85)
>>> Does anyone know how the contraction for "will not" came to be "won't"? >>> "Willn't" seems more logical. -- Jeff Lichtman > > [...] > Therefore I offer some more idle speculation and handwaving of the most > dubious sort. > > According to some old texts by Wright and Sweet, Middle English also had > alternate unaccented forms with -o-, which apparently resulted from the > labial influence of the preceding w- on the weak vowel. Eventually the -o- > form spread to accented contexts as well. > > At a later point, the variation between wil/wol became fixed so that the > -o- appeared only in the negative, which approached the modern form thru > the phonetic steps below: > > wolnt => wowlnt => wownt > > -- Michael Ellis According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, there once was an intermediate form "wonnot", so the "l" was assimilated (rather than dropped) before the contraction took place. -- Lambert Meertens ...!{seismo,okstate,garfield,decvax,philabs}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/07/85)
Another handwaving derivation of why we say "won't" rather than "willn't",
this time phonetic. Just try saying "willn't" as you would in conversation,
and see if it is distinguishable from "won't" said in a somewhat strange
accent. "L" is often readily confused with "O" in noisy surroundings,
and it is easy to imagine that the "i" in "will not" became elided just
as the "o" did, leaving something sounding very much like "won't".
(Maybe it's my English accent -- but that's where the word comes from.)
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmtrob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (08/07/85)
Keywords: In article <1235@sjuvax.UUCP> iannucci@sjuvax.UUCP (iannucci) writes in defense of his assertion that English "won't" came from German "wollen": >I can't think of another language which has had >more influence on English than German. Latin comes close, but not as close as >German. English is, after all, a member of that family of Germanic or Teutonic >languages. I think the many postings that "corrected" your original assertion that "won't" "came from" German "wollen" have a different notion of "influence" and "come from" than you do. English and German have descended from a common ancestor, which linguists call Germanic or more properly Proto-Germanic. (The "Proto" means that the language is hypothesized to have existed based deductions from existent and/or dead-but-documented languages.) The use of the word "ancestor" is a slightly misleading metaphor, since languages don't discretely get born from ancestors in the way living organisms do. A language will evolve and will evolve in different ways in geographically separated locations. English and German are very similar because they have evolved from a relatively RECENT common ancestor. That is, they DIVERGED from their common form not too long ago. However, this does not mean that they have had much influence on each other SINCE THAT DIVERGENCE. In fact, French and Latin have had MUCH, MUCH more influence on Modern English than German has. But again, this is not to say that English is more like French or Latin than to German. Au contraire. English and German are very similar, but the vast majority of the resemblance is due to common ancestry, not to "sibling influence". -- +--------------+-------------------------------+ | Rob Bernardo | Pacific Bell | +--------------+ 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4E700 | | 415-823-2417 | San Ramon, California 94583 | +--------------+-------------------------------+---------+ | ihnp4!ptsfa!rob | | {nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob | +--------------------------------------------------------+
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (08/07/85)
From their views _as_stated_, michael is right, German didn't have much
direct influence on English -- but that's just because we apply the name
'German' only to a point in the history after the branch leading to English
was well split off. But, michael, look at what the guy is trying to say
and instead of flaming him about the facts, just suggest a better way of
putting it. Obviously what Dave has in mind is that English is after all
a Germanic language, and it's reasonable to suspect that apparent cognates
have the same origin in a common ancestor.
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar