|
won't
Jun 14, 2008 2:36:10 GMT
Post by suvvern on Jun 14, 2008 2:36:10 GMT
Can anyone tell me why "will not" is shortened to won't, but should not becomes shouldn't and shall not becomes shan't ?
(Question asked as a result of hearing a young child say "willn't "and be corrected by his mother).
|
|
|
won't
Jun 14, 2008 5:00:17 GMT
Post by Bertie on Jun 14, 2008 5:00:17 GMT
I thought the little darlings always said "shan't". Either way, the child would appear to be disobeying its mother, a much more heinous offence than incorrect use of English.
|
|
|
won't
Jun 14, 2008 5:32:26 GMT
Post by Dave on Jun 14, 2008 5:32:26 GMT
This link shows the won't coming from an older version of "will." As for shan't, could it be that the l's were at one time apostophised also and then that apostrophe got lost? I only find in my Webster's that shan't is defined as "shall not" without any other derivation or comment.
|
|
|
won't
Jun 14, 2008 13:32:47 GMT
Post by goofy on Jun 14, 2008 13:32:47 GMT
won't is not a contraction of will not, it's a contraction of wol not. shan't is a contraction of shal not.
|
|
|
won't
Jun 14, 2008 17:53:11 GMT
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 14, 2008 17:53:11 GMT
In old texts you see "shall not" shortened to sha'n't.
Sue
|
|
|
won't
Jun 14, 2008 20:29:08 GMT
Post by Tone on Jun 14, 2008 20:29:08 GMT
Hey! Dave's "This link" came up on my VDU in bright blue! Hurrah! (See other thread for the problem.) Now, who did something different? (And please do it again, and again, and ...) Tone
|
|
|
won't
Jun 15, 2008 3:24:27 GMT
Post by Geoff on Jun 15, 2008 3:24:27 GMT
Perhaps, in the context of the origins of shan't and won't, someone could explain the origin of ain't as in the following line from the Melinda Schneider song, 'Spaghetti is Ready': There ain't no such thing as having too many shoes While we're at it, is there any reason why lyricists/songwriters (particularly in country songs) almost always follow ain't with another negative? I've said before that I think I've been on these language forums for too long because I feel I've become more sensitive to the bad grammar in the lyrics of too many songs. The poor grammar sometimes takes the enjoyment away from the music. Consider, for instance, the following from another song on the same Melinda Schneider album: I wanna be married I wanna be single too I wanna be married I wanna be single too I don't wanna say I don't boy but I don't wanna say I do I wanna be married I wanna be single too . . . I wanna love you baby but I wanna love another too I can't make my mind up what I wanna do It's just a little problem that I'm going through I wanna love you baby but I wanna love another too
|
|
|
won't
Jun 15, 2008 5:52:59 GMT
Post by Dave on Jun 15, 2008 5:52:59 GMT
Perhaps, in the context of the origins of shan't and won't, someone could explain the origin of ain't as in the following line from the Melinda Schneider song, 'Spaghetti is Ready': Check here for Webster's explanation. She knows my wife! While we're at it, is there any reason why lyricists/songwriters (particularly in country songs) almost always follow ain't with another negative? Cf. The Rolling Stones' "Can't get no satisfaction."
|
|
|
won't
Jun 15, 2008 8:44:24 GMT
Post by Verbivore on Jun 15, 2008 8:44:24 GMT
[...] I wanna be married I wanna be single too [...]
Oh dear! Why even concern oneself with the "correctness" (or not) of those lyrics when they are so egregiously trite? They barely qualify as verse, let alone being lyrical. I accept that verse and lyrics are generally allowed considerable licence, however, so am not sure they can be held to the same conventions as, say, formal prose (but BAD is still bad).
|
|
|
won't
Jun 15, 2008 9:50:24 GMT
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 15, 2008 9:50:24 GMT
Once again I think it's a question of over-correcting. Even up to the Victorian era I think it was acceptable to use ain't as a contraction of am not. Some people, however, had started to use it for a contraction of all forms of the present singular of the verb to be + not, and so it was gradually outlawed by zealous upholders of "correct grammar", to the point where it was thought unacceptable use altogether!
I suppose that most people, whose grasp of grammar is innate and not really conscious, found it too hard to distinguish between the cases when it was thought right to say ain't, and the cases when it wasn't, so if you cared about correctness, the safest bet was not to say it at all. Meanwhile, there have always been plenty of people who couldn't care a fig for correctness.
"We don't want no education!"
Sue
|
|
|
won't
Jun 15, 2008 16:26:43 GMT
Post by Alan Palmer on Jun 15, 2008 16:26:43 GMT
All the members of Pink Floyd were fairly well educated, though. Three of them met at a poly while studying architecture.
Their school-days, particularly Roger Waters's, were apparently not particularly happy ...
|
|
|
won't
Jun 15, 2008 19:32:58 GMT
Post by Twoddle on Jun 15, 2008 19:32:58 GMT
"We don't want no education!" Sue Sue, was that you quoting from a pop song?
|
|
|
won't
Jun 15, 2008 20:21:58 GMT
Post by goofy on Jun 15, 2008 20:21:58 GMT
|
|
|
won't
Jun 15, 2008 20:58:16 GMT
Post by Tone on Jun 15, 2008 20:58:16 GMT
While song lyrics are mentioned, I rather like the double entendre of: "This bed of Rose's that I lay on" (But I rather like the song.) Tone
|
|
|
won't
Jun 15, 2008 22:31:59 GMT
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 15, 2008 22:31:59 GMT
Sue, was that you quoting from a pop song? If that's what it was, I suppose I must have been! Sue
|
|