My educated guessbernmarxJanuary 26 2007, 14:33:06 UTC
Despite what another poster has said, English is very much logical and rules-based; the rules just aren't necessarily clear to the casual observer.
There are two shifts:
i>o l>0
The latter is because /lnt#/ violates English phonotactics (as another poster said, it sounds silly) -- it's not impossible to say, but it's not a consonant cluster that English allows. "Shall" follows the same pattern: "I shan't do it."
There are two other ways that lnt# could be brought into line with English phonotactics: /lt#/ or /ln#/. However, "shalt" and "wilt" are already in use, and "shan't" and "won't" have the obvious advantage of preserving the negative. Or we could just have added /lnt#/ to our phonotactic rules, but sound patterns that exist for just a handful of words tend to disappear over time.
The former shift -- i>o -- isn't something I could have spoken to without reading the comments, but it appears from another poster that the shift is actually o>i (that is, "woll" became "will," and "won't" was already fossilized and didn't come along to "win't"). If so, I can't say why "woll" became "will," but "win't" would sound too much like "went," and those are both common.
Re: My educated guessbernmarxJanuary 26 2007, 17:36:02 UTC
Incidentally, it occurs to me that the i/o alteration in this case might be pretty old, since German also observes it. The infinitive "wollen" ("to want") is "will" in the first person ("Ich will" = "I want").
This is independent from the Great Vowel Shift that students of linguistics and of Western European languages might hear about, where English up and moved the so-called front long vowels (a, e, i), which is why German and Spanish (and to a lesser degree, French) spell their vowels consistently one way and we spell them fairly consistently a different way. (For example, German "katz" ["cat"] sounds like "cots"; French "bête" ["beast"] is "bet," not "beet"; Spanish "micro" ["micro"] is pronounced "MEE-cro.")
There are two shifts:
i>o
l>0
The latter is because /lnt#/ violates English phonotactics (as another poster said, it sounds silly) -- it's not impossible to say, but it's not a consonant cluster that English allows. "Shall" follows the same pattern: "I shan't do it."
There are two other ways that lnt# could be brought into line with English phonotactics: /lt#/ or /ln#/. However, "shalt" and "wilt" are already in use, and "shan't" and "won't" have the obvious advantage of preserving the negative. Or we could just have added /lnt#/ to our phonotactic rules, but sound patterns that exist for just a handful of words tend to disappear over time.
The former shift -- i>o -- isn't something I could have spoken to without reading the comments, but it appears from another poster that the shift is actually o>i (that is, "woll" became "will," and "won't" was already fossilized and didn't come along to "win't"). If so, I can't say why "woll" became "will," but "win't" would sound too much like "went," and those are both common.
Reply
Reply
Reply
This is independent from the Great Vowel Shift that students of linguistics and of Western European languages might hear about, where English up and moved the so-called front long vowels (a, e, i), which is why German and Spanish (and to a lesser degree, French) spell their vowels consistently one way and we spell them fairly consistently a different way. (For example, German "katz" ["cat"] sounds like "cots"; French "bête" ["beast"] is "bet," not "beet"; Spanish "micro" ["micro"] is pronounced "MEE-cro.")
(Oh no, you've dropped a quarter in my slot!)
Reply
Leave a comment