Timeline for Does the 18th century contraction "on't" survive phonologically in English today?

5 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Feb 10, 2013 at 15:51	vote	accept	Robusto
Feb 26, 2012 at 17:15	comment	added	John Lawler		Interesting point. That seems to show that in at least one case, it was likely to represent one syllable; of course, it's poetry, and they make a forced rhyme, and both are contracted (so they could both be either one or two syllables), but it's probably evidence pro monosyllabicity in that case.
Feb 26, 2012 at 15:14	comment	added	Peter Shor		It was one syllable. Either that, or the meter doesn't scan in this poem: When in the latter mood one day, // He squeezed his hand and swore to pay— // “But when?”—“Next month.—You may depend on't // My dearest Snipps, before the end on't— Note that here the first on't means "on it" and the second "of it", as @Barrie remarks.
Feb 25, 2012 at 18:34	comment	added	Barrie England		Johnson and others seem to have used it to mean ‘of it’, rather than ‘on it’. Of this use of 'on', the OED notes that it is ‘archaic and regional’, but there’s a citation as late as 1992: ‘Well I finds they glass jiggamies in attic look an takes they home well nigh fifty on 'em’.
Feb 25, 2012 at 18:14	history	answered	John Lawler	CC BY-SA 3.0