The spelling with the l sound is "shalln't". Also, I came across this after I heard it in Stargate SG1.
Season 9 - Episode 4 "The Ties that Bind". About 25 minutes in.
Daniel Jackson is told something along the lines of "we shall have to get used to each other". And he replies "No, we shalln't".
Also, iOS autocorrect will automatically punctuate "shalln't" for you.
Answer from Fogmeister on Stack ExchangeVideos
"Shouldn't" or "shan't" taking the place of "wouldn't" or "won't"? Wondering about current usage and geographical distribution.
In the 19th century they taught that "shall" is used for first person pronouns and "will" is used for 2nd and 3rd person. This also extended to their preterite forms, "should" and "would". The meanings of will and shall were otherwise mostly interchangeable.
With modal verbs like "will" and "shall", the preterite form is not limited to events that took place in the past, but can also serve as a marker of a subjunctive modality. It is not morphologically related to the original Indo-European subjunctive mood; it is morphologically a simple past tense. You can think of it as subjunctive if you prefer, but most modern English grammars reserve "subjunctive" to describe the mood of the verb "finish" in the sentence "He requested that she finish eating."
More on reddit.com"'ll+not" = "shan't"? | WordReference Forums
shan't & don't | WordReference Forums
Are there any contractions that we no longer use?
I think this usage is slightly archaic and/or British. I remember reading it in Alice in Wonderland, in any case. Here, "shouldn't" and "shan't" do not indicate any kind of obligation, but describe exactly the same meaning as "wouldn't" or "won't." E.g.:
"After falling off of a building, I shan't think anything of falling down the stairs."
"Is he coming to the party?" "I shouldn't think so."
I am also curious about the mood of these verbs. Is it subjunctive?
(I use "shouldn't" and "shan't" semi-regularly in my writing, and now I'm wondering if I'm confusing my readers...)
In the 19th century they taught that "shall" is used for first person pronouns and "will" is used for 2nd and 3rd person. This also extended to their preterite forms, "should" and "would". The meanings of will and shall were otherwise mostly interchangeable.
With modal verbs like "will" and "shall", the preterite form is not limited to events that took place in the past, but can also serve as a marker of a subjunctive modality. It is not morphologically related to the original Indo-European subjunctive mood; it is morphologically a simple past tense. You can think of it as subjunctive if you prefer, but most modern English grammars reserve "subjunctive" to describe the mood of the verb "finish" in the sentence "He requested that she finish eating."
"Shall" was previously the verb used to form the future with first-person pronouns, and "will" with the other persons ("I shall see you tomorrow" / "You will see me tomorrow" / "He will be coming").
This was reversed in order to show intention rather than just expressing the future. A famous example of this is Cinderella's fairy godmother saying "You shall go to the ball!" This is not just a mere statement of a future action: it is the godmother's intention. Other examples: "I will not have this!" / "He will do as I say!" (This means that the song used in sit-ins should really be "We will not be moved" rather than "We shall not be moved".)
"Should" and "would" worked in the same way. The examples you give with "shan't" and "shouldn't" express future actions rather than intention.
Nowadays, "shall" and "should" (in this sense) are archaic. There is no need to use them in your writing, but if you do, it is preferable to stick to the original meanings.