Why "won't" rather than "win't"?

Rick   Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:12 pm GMT
Where does the "o" come from?
Uriel   Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:35 am GMT
No idea. I wonder why myself.
Quintus   Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:37 am GMT
It is because "will not" used to take the form "woll not". However, a regional contracted negation has existed in England as "willn't" and in Scotland, as "willna" or "wullna".

So it's all caused by that highly irregular verb "to be", of which "will" is the future tense.

By Will Shakespeare's time, "woll not" was contracted to "wonnot". It was then shortened some more, so we now have "won't" (and the past tense of "woll" was "would" - O. E., wolde).

In the Alice books, "won't" is spelled "wo'n't" :

~.~.~.~.~ THE LOBSTER QUADRILLE ~.~.~.~.~

'Will you walk a little faster?' said a whiting to a snail,
'There's a porpoise close behind us, and he's treading on my tail.
See how eagerly the lobsters and the turtles all advance!
They are waiting on the shingle--will you come and join the dance?
Will you, wo'n't you, will you, wo'n't you, will you join the dance?
Will you, wo'n't you, will you, wo'n't you, wo'n't you join the dance?

'You can really have no notion how delightful it will be,
'When they take us up and throw us, with the lobsters, out to sea!'
But the snail replied 'Too far, too far!' and gave a look askance--
Said he thanked the whiting kindly, but he would not join the dance.
Would not, could not, would not, could not, would not join the dance
Would not, could not, would not, could not, could not join the dance.

'What matters it how far we go?' his scaly friend replied.
'There is another shore, you know, upon the other side.
The further off from England the nearer is to France--
Then turn not pale, beloved snail, but come and join the dance.
Will you, wo'n't you, will you, wo'n't you, will you join the dance?
Will you, wo'n't you, will you, wo'n't you, wo'n't you join the dance?'
Rick   Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:13 am GMT
"will" is the not the future tense of "be". If anything, saying it is the future tense of "do" would be more accurate, but it's not considered that either.
Rick   Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:19 am GMT
"I do" (present tense)
"I did" (past tense)
"I will" (future tense)

"I am" (present tense)
"I was" (past tense)
"I will be" (future tense)

One could say that "will" is the future tense of "do" (even though it's not typically referred to as such), but it's definitely not the future tense of "be".
Uriel   Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:27 am GMT
Will is part of the future tense of most verbs. I will be, I will do, I will go, I will eat, I will sing, etc. It's not limited to one or another.
Quintus   Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:11 am GMT
Well, that was just an incidental slip-up on my part, wasn't it ?- It's true, "will" is neither the future of "be" nor of "do". ("Shall" is another separate verb, originally meaning to "owe" or "ought" in Old English.)

My main point stands, which is that "won't" is a contraction of the archaical form "woll not". Doesn't that answer the question ?

As I mentioned, a related form we have kept is "would", the so-called future in the past of "woll" and "will" ["I would" is, in effect, "I wolled", so "I willed"].

EXAMPLE :
Rick will correct my slip-up.
Rick vowed he would correct my slip-up.

Future in the past, rather like Bulwer-Lytton's "Vril" !
Another Guest   Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:06 am GMT
English has no future tense. Future is denoted by the modal verb "will". The "future tense" of "be" is "will be". Note that the noun "will" means "what a person wants". So to "will" means to cause something to happen through one's efforts. Literally, "I will be there" means "I decide to be there", and originally that was distinguished from "shall", which denoted future events that one did not necessarily wish to happen. Now "will" is used for all future events, regardless of whether one wants them to happen, at least in SAE, although there are some pedants who insist on making the distinction.
Quintus   Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:51 am GMT
Thanks, A. G., that's an excellent supplement to the thread.

We might as well view the whole etymological slew, which clearly shows the ancient idea of willing as wishing, traceable all the way back to Proto-Indo-European :

will (v.)
O.E. *willan, wyllan "to wish, desire, want" (past tense wolde), from P.Gmc. *welljan (cf. O.S. willian, O.N. vilja, O.Fris. willa, Du. willen, O.H.G. wellan, Ger. wollen, Goth. wiljan "to will, wish, desire," Goth. waljan "to choose"), from PIE *wel-/*wol- "be pleasing" (cf. Skt. vrnoti "chooses, prefers," varyah "to be chosen, eligible, excellent," varanam "choosing;" Avestan verenav- "to wish, will, choose;" Gk. elpis "hope;" L. volo, velle "to wish, will, desire;" O.C.S. voljo, voliti "to will," veljo, veleti "to command;" Lith. velyti "to wish, favor," pa-vel-mi "I will," viliuos "I hope;" Welsh gwell "better"). Cf. also O.E. wel "well," lit. "according to one's wish;" wela "well-being, riches." The use as a future auxiliary was already developing in O.E. The implication of intention or volition distinguishes it from shall, which expresses or implies obligation or necessity. Contracted forms, especially after pronouns, began to appear 16c., as in sheele for "she will." The form with an apostrophe is from 17c.

[From the Online Etymology Dictionary]
Going gone went   Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:00 pm GMT
>>The "future tense" of "be" is "will be"... "I will be there"...<<

I am going to be there!
Quintus   Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:19 pm GMT
Yes, very true - or :
"I am to be there", "I shall be there", "I mun be there" (in Yorkshire) ; but "I will be there", as A. G. has helpfully indicated, presides nowadays as the primary "default" future tense in English. (The Triumph of the Will, if you will.)