THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.
s. 395. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as an irregular verb.
This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea of _being_ or
_existing_ is expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective
in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are
made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no
praeterite of the verb _am_, and no present of the verb _was_. The absence,
however, of the present form of _was_ is made up by the word _am_, and the
absence of the praeterite form of _am_ is made up by the word _was_.
s. 396. _Was._--Defective, except in the praeterite tense, where it is
found both in the indicative and conjunctive.
_Indicative._ | _Conjunctive._
|
_Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
|
1. Was. Were. | 1. Were. Were.
2. Wast. Were. | 2. Wert. Were.
3. Was. Were. | 3. Were. Were.
In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word has both a full
conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it has an infinitive, a
participle present, and a participle past. In Moeso-Gothic it is inflected
throughout with _-s_; as _visa_, _vas_, _v[^e]sum_, _visans_. In that
language it has the power of the Latin _maneo_ = _to remain_. The _-r_
first appears in the Old High German; _wisu_, _was_, _w[^a]rum[^e]s_,
_wesaner_. In Norse the _s_ entirely disappears, and the word is inflected
with _r_ throughout; _vera_, _var_, _vorum_, &c.
s. 397. _Be._--Inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both
indicative and subjunctive; found also as an {345} infinitive _be['o]n_, as
a gerund to _beonne_, and as a participle _beonde_. In the present English
its inflection is as follows:--
_Present._
_Indicative._ | _Conjunctive._ | _Imperative._
_Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
| |
1. -- -- | Be. Be. | -- --
2. Beest. -- | Beest? Be. | Be. Be.
3. -- -- | Be. Be, Bin. | -- --
| |
_Infin._ To be. _Pres. P._ Being. _Past Part._ Been.
The line in Milton beginning _If thou beest he_--(P. L. b. ii.), leads to
the notion that the antiquated form _beest_ is not indicative, but
conjunctive. Such, however, is not the case: _b['y]st_ in Anglo-Saxon is
indicative, the conjunctive form being _be['o]_.--_And every thing that
pretty bin_ (Cymbeline).--Here the word _bin_ is the conjunctive plural, in
Anglo-Saxon _b['e]on_; so that the words _every thing_ are to be considered
equivalent to the plural form _all things_. The phrase in Latin would stand
thus, _quotquot pulcra sint_; in Greek thus, [Greek: ha an kala ei]. The
_indicative_ plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not _be['o]n_, but _be['o]dh_ and
_be['o]_.
s. 398. In the Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1051, it is stated that the
Anglo-Saxon forms _be['o]_, _bist_, _bidh_, _beodh_, or _be['o]_, have not
a present, but a future sense; that whilst _am_ means _I am_, _be['o]_
means _I shall be_; and that in the older languages it is only where the
form _am_ is not found that _be_ has the power of a present form. The same
root occurs in the Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as,
_esmi_=_I am_; _b['u]su_=_I shall be_, Lithuanic.--_Esmu_=_I am_;
_buhshu_=_I shall be_, Livonic.--_Jesm_=_I am_; _budu_=_I shall be_,
Slavonic.--_Gsem_=_I am_; _budu_=_I shall be_, Bohemian. This, however,
proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense (or form), but that
the word _be['o]_ has a future sense. There is no fresh tense where there
is no fresh form.
The following is a specimen of the future power of _be['o]n_ in
Anglo-Saxon:--"_Hi ne _be['o]dh_ na c['i]lde, sodhlice, on domesdaege, ac
_be['o]dh_ swa micele menn swa swa hi, migton be['o]n gif hi full weoxon on
gewunlicre ylde._"--Aelfric's Homilies. "They _will not_ be children,
forsooth, on Domesday, but _will be_ as much {346} (so muckle) men as they
might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."
s. 399. If we consider the word _be['o]n_ like the word _weordhan_ (see
below) to mean not so much _to be_ as to _become_, we get an element of the
idea of futurity. Things which are _becoming anything_ have yet something
further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the
idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of _be_. In
English we often say _may_ for _shall_, and the same was done in
Anglo-Saxon.--"_Ic dhe secge, he[`o] is be dham h['u]se dhe Fegor h['a]tte,
and n['a]n man nis dhe hig w['i]te_ (_shall, may know_) _aer dh['a]m myclan
d['o]me_."--Aelfric's Homilies, 44.
s. 400. _Am._--Of this form it should be stated, that the letter _-m_ is no
part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it
is in all the Indo-European languages.
It should also be stated, that, although the fact be obscured, and although
the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the forms _am_, _art_, _are_,
and _is_, are not, like _am_ and _was_, parts of different words, but forms
of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although between _am_ and
_be_ there is no etymological connexion, there is one between _am_ and
_is_. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages.
1. 2. 3.
Sanskrit _Asmi._ _Asi._ _Asti._
Zend _Ahmi._ _Ani._ _Ashti_.
Greek [Greek: Eimi]. [Greek: Eis]. [Greek: Ei].
Latin _Sum._ _Es._ _Esti._
Lithuanic _Esmi._ _Essi._ _Esti._
Old Slavonic _Yesmy._ _Yesi._ _Yesty._
Moeso-Gothic _Im._ _Is._ _Ist._
Old Saxon -- [58]_Is._ _Ist._
Anglo-Saxon _Eom._ _Eart._ _Is._
Icelandic _Em._ _Ert._ _Er._
English _Am_. _Art._ _Is._
In English and Anglo-Saxon the word is found in the {347} present
indicative only. In English it is inflected through both numbers; in
Anglo-Saxon in the singular number only. The Anglo-Saxon plurals are forms
of the German _seyn_, a verb whereof we have, in the present English, no
vestiges.
_Worth._--In the following lines of Scott, the word _worth_=_is_, and is a
fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verb _weordhan_=_to be_, or _to
become_; German, _werden_.
Woe _worth_ the chase, woe _worth_ the day,
That cost thy life, my gallant grey.
_Lady of the Lake._
* * * * *
{348}