Shan't or Sha'n't?

​Every so often, an APS member asks a wonderfully awkward question: if can't comes from cannot and won't comes from will not, why is shall not contracted to shan't? Surely it ought to be sha'n't, with two apostrophes?

It's a fair question. The answer lies in history rather than logic.

​Originally, both forms existed. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, writers occasionally used sha'n't, with one apostrophe marking the missing letters in shall and the other marking the missing "o" from not. If you browse old books, you'll find plenty of examples.

Over time, however, English did what English so often does: it simplified things. The two apostrophes became one, and shan't emerged as the standard spelling. That's the form recognised by modern dictionaries and style guides.

The pronunciation probably helped. We don't say shall not with two clearly separate omissions; we pronounce shan't as a single word. One apostrophe proved quite sufficient.

This leaves us with an interesting little inconsistency. If we followed the apostrophe's job description to the letter, sha'n't might seem more logical. But English spelling is not governed solely by logic. Tradition has a habit of winning the argument.

So, should you ever write sha'n't? Unless you're quoting a historical text or deliberately adopting an old-fashioned style, the answer is no. Modern English overwhelmingly favours shan't. And for those of you in the USA, you might not use the contraction at all - it's certainly much less common.

It's another reminder that apostrophes don't always tell the whole story. Sometimes they tell the story of English itself—a language that's wonderfully rich, occasionally eccentric, and not always inclined to tidy up after itself.