Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Our English Language

Brookwood
Ok, I have a bit of an understanding about two words being abbreviated together using (') like: can't for cannot, or we'll for we will. I have used the word "won't" most of my literate life but today after using it in a sentence, can't understand the logic of what two words go together to make "won't"???[:0]

Woe is me for having such a thought today![:)]
0

Comments

18 comments

Date Votes
  • Rocky Raab
    The two are "Will not". It may seem odd, but it would be odder still to see it as "wil't" or "wiln't".
    0
  • remingtonoaks
    quote:Originally posted by Brookwood
    Ok, I have a bit of an understanding about two words being abbreviated together using (') like: can't for cannot, or we'll for we will. I have used the word "won't" most of my literate life but today after using it in a sentence, can't understand the logic of what two words go together to make "won't"???[:0]

    Woe is me for having such a thought today![:)]


    I don't know if you were saying woe or why[:0] and

    I am or "I'm" .. not "is me"[:D]

    But I'm glad you do have a LITTLE (not) "BIT" understanding of the English language[:D]
    0
  • Brookwood
    The most famous use of the word won't:

    "I won't, I won't, like Hell I won't!"

    John Wayne [:)]
    0
  • 11b6r
    contraction of will not , first recorded mid-15c. as wynnot, later wonnot (1580s) before the modern form emerged 1660s.
    0
  • Brookwood
    quote:Originally posted by 11b6r
    contraction of will not , first recorded mid-15c. as wynnot, later wonnot (1580s) before the modern form emerged 1660s.


    Thank you 11b6r! I just knew "woe" was in there somewhere![:I]
    0
  • Rocky Raab
    Sorry, rem: "Oh, woe is me" is historically acceptable. It's even in the Bobble.
    0
  • Brookwood
    quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
    Sorry, rem: "Oh, woe is me" is historically acceptable. It's even in the Bobble.


    I could have used a comma after woe but it seemed a bit redundant. Our language sure has some complications with it![:)]
    0
  • mogley98
    Why not for "would not" ?
    0
  • Rocky Raab
    That might be a great guess based on today's English, mogley, but the etymology of "won't" goes a lot farther back. Here's an article...

    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4521/what-is-wont-a-contraction-of
    0
  • Mr. Perfect
    If you start saying/writing yesn't, there will be blood.
    0
  • yoshmyster
    I still don't get how you get "Bill" from William or "Peggy" from Margaret.
    0
  • 35 Whelen
    46565836521_39607d9a77_z.jpg
    0
  • Rocky Raab
    English is hard.

    It can be mastered through tough thorough thought though.
    0
  • Ditch-Runner
    my Japanese buddies I made at the plant I use to work at told me English was terrible ,too much slang and too many words have more than one meaning
    0
  • spasmcreek
    english....the official language of the minority known as semior AMERICANS...the only clear verbal communication channel left in AMERICA
    0
  • gruntled
    quote:Originally posted by Ditch-Runner
    my Japanese buddies I made at the plant I use to work at told me English was terrible ,too much slang and too many words have more than one meaning


    At least we only have one word for "the" & we don't have to be concerned with the gender of most nouns.
    I do expect that homonyms cause a lot of problems especially since we see so many people misuse them.
    Now tell me the difference between homonym, homophone & homograph.
    0
  • austin20
    Yall
    0
  • Rocky Raab
    Get in the yawl, y'all.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity