\documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}

\usepackage[polutonikogreek,english]{babel}
\usepackage[oxonia]{psgreek}

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % This is needed for the letter thorn (\th)
%\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{url}
%\input{../../../TeX/abbreviations}
\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\textbf{#1}}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{eco}
%\input{../../../TeX/format}
\newcommand{\IE}{IE}
\newcommand{\OEng}{OE}
\newcommand{\uety}[1]{\textsf{*#1}}  % unattested etymon
\newcommand{\ety}[1]{\textsf{#1}}  % etymon
\newcommand{\Lat}[1]{\textsc{#1}}
\newcommand{\Gk}[1]{\begin{greektext}{#1}\end{greektext}}

\title{Notes on the substantive verb in English}
\author{David Pierce}
\date{\today}
\newcommand{\Eng}[1]{\textsf{#1}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\tableofcontents

\section{Introduction}

  These notes\footnote{I originally composed these notes in 2005; I
  have done some editing since.} are ultimately about the verb that in
  English is called
  \Eng{(to)  be.}  I came to write these notes because of a tendency that
  seems more prevalent in British than in American English.  A
  supplement to the (British)
  \emph{Guardian Weekly} in 2005 contained the following sentence:
  \begin{quote}
    [Angel's] boyfriend, Benson, insisted that she had the baby when she
    belatedly discovered she was pregnant at six
    months.\footnote{\emph{Guardian Weekly,} July 1--7, 2005: `Hear
    Africa 05' supplement, p.~3:
`1---Angel Swartbooi, Born: 02.06.05, South Africa', by
David Beresford and Ellen Elmendorp.}
  \end{quote}
The word \Eng{had} here is to me quite startling; I would say that
Benson insisted that Angel \emph{have} the baby.  As it is,
the quotation suggests to me that, when Angel discovered she was
pregnant, she \emph{already} had a baby, and Benson was insisting that
this was true.  But this is not what was
intended: Benson was insisting on a future act, not a present state. 

In a word, I think the \emph{subjunctive} form \Eng{have} should have
been used, rather than the \emph{indicative} form \Eng{had.}
In a similar situation, a subjunctive form of \Eng{be} is used,
for example, in an American novel of 1927:  
\begin{quote}
  Worse things were said of her, and petitions were afloat that she be
  locked up.\footnote{Thornton Wilder, \emph{The Bridge of San Luis
  Rey,} p.~15 in the Penguin edition.}
\end{quote}
If the \emph{Guardian} writers had written this, they might have said
petitions were afloat that she \emph{was} locked up.

\Eng{Have} and \Eng{had} seem to be different forms of the same word,
whereas \Eng{be} and \Eng{was} appear to be completely different
words.  However, we understand \Eng{be} and \Eng{was} to be versions
of the one verb \Eng{(to) be.}  How did this come about?

What \emph{is}
the history of \Eng{be,} and how did it come to have so many forms?
Accounts of \Eng{be} can be found on the
web.\footnote{\url{http://www.etymonline.com/columns/tobe.htm}, 2005.07.11;\\
 \url{http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be}, 2005.07.12.}
Most of my historical information is second hand, and I try to name my
sources.  This means there are many references to the original Oxford
English Dictionary \cite{OED} in particular; I check these against the
web version\footnote{\url{http://dictionary.oed.com/}} of the
second edition (1989).


\section{Grammar}

I shall use standard grammatical terminology; but I want
first to say something about what the terms mean, as I see
them.\footnote{How I see them is inspired in part by the manual of
  ancient Greek by Molin and Williamson that was in use at St John's
  College in Annapolis when I was a student there in the 1980s.
  However, I have not looked at that manual in many years.}  A
simple \defn{sentence} involves
\begin{enumerate}
  \item
a \defn{speaker,} 
\item
a \defn{listener} (or
listeners), and 
\item
(usually) a \defn{subject} (that is, a \emph{real} subject, which will
  be referred to by the \emph{grammatical} subject).   
\end{enumerate}
Some sentences have no subject: such sentences are
\emph{imperative,} as will be discussed below in the
context of \emph{mood;} meanwhile, let us consider a sentence with a
subject.  A
certain part of this sentence is called a \defn{(grammatical) subject;}
this \emph{names} or otherwise distinguishes the real subject.
The grammatical subject also indicates the \defn{person} of the
sentence: that is, it tells something about the
relation between the subject, the listener, and the speaker.  I am
treating person as a feature of the whole \emph{sentence,} not
just of parts of the sentence.
The
person is called:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item
\defn{first,} if the speaker and subject are identical;
\item
\defn{second,} if the listener and subject are identical;
\item
\defn{third,} otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
Actually, person is not quite so simple, since a
sentence also has a 
\defn{number.}  In English, the number is:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item
\defn{singular,} if the subject is conceived as one entity;
\item
\defn{plural,} if more than one.
\end{enumerate}
The subject of a plural sentence can be thought of as a \emph{class;}
then the person of a {plural} sentence is:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item
\defn{first,} if the speaker is a member of that class;
\item
\defn{second,} if the listener or listeners are included in the
class, but the speaker is not; 
\item
\defn{third,} otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
A sentence says something about its subject, namely, something that has a
\emph{time} in relation to the uttering of the sentence; this time-relation
is indicated by the \defn{tense} of the sentence, which can be
\defn{present} or \defn{past} or (sometimes) \defn{future} (or
sometimes variations on these).

Let us say that what the sentence says about its subject (if it has
one) is an
\emph{event.}  The tense of the sentence concerns the relation between
the event and the uttering of the sentence.  This utterance is an
\emph{interaction} between the speaker and listener.
The sentence also says something about the event in its relation to
the speaker alone.  What it says is called the \defn{mood} (or
\defn{mode}) of the sentence; this mood is, in English:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item
\defn{indicative,} if the event is real for the speaker;
\item
\defn{subjunctive,} if the event is not real (but rather hypothetical,
wished for, and so forth), and there is a subject;
\item
\defn{imperative,} if there is no subject.
\end{enumerate}
By this account, imperative sentences have no tense or person.
%However, they can be considered as having the present tense.  
They
have a number, which is singular if the listener is one entity, and
plural, if
more than one.  
It may be said that an imperative sentence, in the present sense, is
in the \emph{second} person, since
a sentence like `God bless you' is a
third-person imperative.
However, 
I shall just refer to such a sentence as subjunctive, in contrast
with `God blesses you,' an indicative.

Some verb-forms have no person or number, but do have tense: these are
the \defn{participles} (such as \Eng{going} and \Eng{gone}).  Other
verb-forms do not even have tense: the 
\defn{infinitive} (\Eng{to go}) and the \defn{gerund} (\Eng{going}).

In English, distinctions of person and number \emph{can} be indicated
by \defn{(personal) pronouns;} first and second persons \emph{must} be
so indicated.  Two numbers and three persons would seem to make six
kinds of personal pronoun; however, English has lost its second-person
singular, and the former plural now does duty for both numbers.
However, since the old singular retains a vestigial presence in the
current language, it is listed
parenthetically 
in Table~\ref{table:pronouns} below.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
    \begin{tabular}{r|c|c|}
&singular&plural\\\hline
first&\Eng I&\Eng{we}\\\hline
second&(\Eng{thou})&(\Eng{ye,}) \Eng{you}\\\hline
third&\Eng{she/he/it}&\Eng{they}\\\hline
  \end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Personal pronouns}
\label{table:pronouns}
\end{table}

English is said to be one of the descendents of a common
\defn{Germanic} (or `Teutonic') language, which in turn was one of the
descendents of \defn{Indo-European} (\IE); but Germanic and
Indo-European were
not written down, so words supposed to have belonged to them are
sometimes written with asterisks to indicate their hypothetical status.

Indo-European and Germanic \defn{verbs} seem to have exhibited all of the
distinctions of person and number.  Verbs of current English do
\emph{not} exhibit these distinctions, and it seems foolish to
tabulate their forms as if they did.

I am not going to talk about the compound verbs formed with various
\defn{auxiliaries.}  Still, three persons, two numbers, two tenses,
and two moods
would seem to make 24 possibilities; this is not counting the two
numbers for an imperative; the two tenses for a participle; the
infinitive; and the gerund; that makes 30 possible forms.

\section{English verbs}

A regular English verb like \Eng{walk} has four forms---five, if you
count an archaic form:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item
second-person singular present indicative (archaic): \Eng{walkest;}
  \item
third-person singular present indicative: \Eng{walks;}
\item
present participle, and gerund: \Eng{walking;}
\item
past: \Eng{walked;}
\item
other: \Eng{walk.}
\end{enumerate}
I am ignoring the archaic alternative third-person singular
\Eng{walketh.}  I am not treating the infinitive phrase \Eng{to walk}
separately from \Eng{walk.}

I do not know why, in the current language, with all of the
 distinctions possible among the present indicative, subjunctive, and
 imperative verbs,
the third-person singular indicative alone retains a
special form.  This form can be usefully contrasted
with the subjunctive:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item
`He insists that he walk'---he will not accept a ride.
\item
`He insists that he walks'---he denies taking taxis.
\end{enumerate}
But the subjunctive is obsolescent.  (The first sentence does not
sound so natural to me as the equivalent `He
insists on walking.')

In some verbs, the past participle is distinct from the other past
forms, and there are five forms in all: 
\Eng{sings, 
singing,
sang,
sung, 
sing.}
Other verbs collapse distinctions, showing only three forms:
\Eng{puts, putting, put.}  One verb represents the
coalescence of two from the ancestral language, but still exhibits
only five forms: \Eng{goes, going, went, gone, go.}

\section{\Eng{be}}

In a class by itself is \Eng{be,} with eight forms currently, and one
more that is archaic:
\begin{enumerate}
   \item
   present:
   \begin{enumerate}
      \item
      indicative:
      \begin{enumerate}
         \item
         singular:
         \begin{enumerate}
	    \item
            first person: \Eng{am}
            \item
            (second person: \Eng{art})
            \item
            third person: \Eng{is}
         \end{enumerate}
         \item
         plural: \Eng{are}
      \end{enumerate}
      \item
      subjunctive (and imperative, and infinitive): \Eng{be}
      \item
      participle (and gerund): \Eng{being}
      \end{enumerate}
   \item
   past:
   \begin{enumerate}
      \item
      first- and third-person singular indicative: \Eng{was}
      \item
      other indicative, and subjunctive: \Eng{were}
      \item
      participle: \Eng{been}
   \end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
By the account of \cite{OED} and \cite{OE}, these are the remnants of three
verbs in Indo-European: 
\begin{enumerate}
  \item
From \uety{(e)s-} come \Eng{am, is, are;}
\item
from \uety{wes-} come \Eng{was, were;}
\item
from \uety{bheu-} come \Eng{be, being, been.}
\end{enumerate}
A more recent authority \cite{CODEE} traces \Eng{are} to a different
source; on the
web\footnote{\url{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula},
  2005.07.11} the source is said to be \IE\ \uety{her-.} 

By the account of \cite{OED}, \ety{es-} was the `Aryan' (that is,
Indo-European)
substantive verb, but it had only present forms in `Teutonic' (Germanic)
languages like English.  In another Germanic language, Gothic,
\ety{wes-} was a separate complete verb with the meaning of `remain,
stay,' and hence `continue to be.'  Old English (\OEng, that is,
English before the Norman Invasion of 1066) took the past forms of 
\ety{wes-} and treated them as past forms of \ety{es-,} thus creating a
complete verb that we might call \Eng{am-was.} 
Meanwhile, in Old English, \ety{be} was a distinct verb with no past
forms, with the meaning of `become, come to be'; hence its present
forms could (and did) serve as a \emph{future} tense for
\Eng{am-was.}  Later, by the beginning of the 13th century, forms of
\Eng{be} supplanted some forms of \Eng{am-was.}  Eventually, a past
participle from \Eng{be} was introduced (there was none in Old English).
 
The following Old-English forms are from \cite{OE}; many variants are
given in \cite{OED}.  In brackets I give the modern form of the word,
if it exists, followed by cognate forms in Greek and Latin (because
they are familiar to me), though not in other Germanic tongues
(because they are not familiar to me).  The forms themselves are
summarized in Table~\ref{table:forms}.
\begin{table}[t]
  \begin{center}
    \begin{tabular}{|r|c|c|c|c|}\hline
present indicative:&\Eng{eom}&\Eng{am}&\Eng{b\=eo}&\Eng{be}\\
&\Eng{eart}&\Eng{art}&\Eng{bist}&\Eng{beest}\\
&\Eng{is}&\Eng{is}&\Eng{bi\th}&\Eng{beeth}\\
&\Eng{sind(on), earun}&\Eng{are}&\Eng{b\=o\th}&\Eng{be}\\\hline
present subjunctive&\Eng{sie}&&\Eng{b\=eo}&\Eng{be}\\
&\Eng{s\={\i}en}&&\Eng{b\=eon}&\Eng{be}\\\hline\hline
imperative:&\Eng{wes}&&\Eng{b\=eo}&\Eng{be}\\
&\Eng{wesa\th}&&\Eng{b\=eo\th}&\Eng{be}\\\hline
infinitive:&\Eng{wesan}&&\Eng{b\=eon}&\Eng{be}\\\hline
present participle:&\Eng{wesende}&&\Eng{b\=eonde}&\Eng{being}\\\hline\hline
past indicative:&\Eng{w\ae s}&\Eng{was}&&\\
&\Eng{w\={\ae}re}&\Eng{wert}&&\\
&\Eng{w\={\ae}ron}&\Eng{were}&&\\\hline
past subjunctive&\Eng{w\={\ae}re}&\Eng{were}&&\\
&\Eng{w\={\ae}ren}&\Eng{were}&&\\\hline
    \end{tabular}
  \end{center}
  \caption{Forms of the substantive verb in Old and modern English}
\label{table:forms}
\end{table}
\begin{enumerate}
  \item
   Forms from \ety{es-}:
   \begin{enumerate}
      \item
      present indicative:
      \begin{enumerate}
	 \item
         singular:
         \begin{enumerate}
	    \item
            first: \Eng{eom} [\Eng{am,}\footnote{This is the sole
            survival in English of the personal suffix \ety{-m}
            \cite{OED}.} \Gk{e>im'i,} \Lat{svm}]
            \item
            second: \Eng{eart} [\Eng{art,} \Gk{e\char218,}
            \Lat{es}]\footnote{According to \cite{OED}, the \ety{s} in
            the root became \ety{r,} and the \ety{t} represents the
            second-person pronoun; but this formation is not found in
            Gothic, or outside Germanic.  However, \Eng{art} is traced
            in \cite{CODEE} to the hypothetical Germanic base
            \uety{ar-.}} 
            \item
            third: \Eng{is} [\Eng{is,} \Gk{>est'i,}
            \Lat{est}]\footnote{Since Middle English, \Eng{is} has
            been used in the north of England for all singular
            persons, and in the plural, when the subject is a noun or
            a relative pronoun; such usage is frequent in
            Shakespeare's folio of 1613 \cite{OED}.}
	 \end{enumerate}
         \item
         plural (all persons): 
         \begin{enumerate}
	    \item
	    from \ety{'s-}: \Eng{sind(on),\footnote{The \ety{-on} is a
	    second plural suffix, occurring in West Germanic
	    \cite{OED}.} sint} [\Gk{e>is'i,} \Lat{svnt}]\footnote{The
	    Greek \Gk{e>is'i} is not mentioned in \cite{OED}, but
	    according to \cite{Smyth}, it represents \Gk{senti} and
	    can be compared with \Lat{svnt}---which \cite{OED} does
	    mention.  Both of these verbs are third person.}
            \item
            from \ety{es-}: \Eng{earun}\footnote{I do not find this
            word in \cite{OE}; says \cite{OED}, it was a re-formation
            from the full \ety{es-,} but was used only in
            Anglian dialects, alongside the formation on \ety{'s-.}}
            [\Eng{are,} \Gk{>esm'en,
            >est'e, \char234\=asi,} \Lat{estis}]\footnote{The persons
            of the Greek
            and Latin forms are, respectively, first, second, Homeric
            third \cite{Smyth}, and second.}
            \end{enumerate}
         \end{enumerate}
      \item
      present subjunctive\footnote{The subjunctive was originally an optative
      \cite{OED}; see Note \ref{note:Greek-optative}.}:
      \begin{enumerate}
	 \item
         singular (all persons\footnote{A form peculiar to the first
         person was possible: \Eng{si\=em} or \Eng{si\=on}
         \cite{OED}.}): \Eng{sie} [\Lat{s\={\i}m, s\={\i}s, s\={\i}t}]
         \item
         plural: \Eng{s\=\i en} [\Lat{s\={\i}mvs, s\={\i}tis,
         s\={\i}nt}]\footnote{To \Lat{s\={\i}mvs} can be compared the
         optative \Gk{e\char210hmen,} from \Gk{esv\=imen}
         \cite{Smyth}.\label{note:Greek-optative}} 
      \end{enumerate}
   \end{enumerate}
   \item
   Forms from \ety{wes-}:
   \begin{enumerate}
      \item
      imperative:
      \begin{enumerate}
	 \item
         singular: \Eng{wes}
         \item
         plural: \Eng{wesa\th}
      \end{enumerate}
      \item
      infinitive: \Eng{wesan}
      \item
      present participle: \Eng{wesende}
      \item
      past indicative:
      \begin{enumerate}
	 \item
         first- and third-person singular: \Eng{w\ae s}
         [\Eng{was}\footnote{In dialect, \Eng{were} and \Eng{war} are
         used \cite{OED}.}]
         \item
         second-person singular: \Eng{w\={\ae}re}
         [\Eng{were}\footnote{This is the etymological form; the
         analogical form \Eng{wast} is found in Tindale and the 1611
         Bible; in Shakespeare is the intermediate form \Eng{wert}
         \cite{OED}.}] 
         \item
         plural: \Eng{w\ae ron} [\Eng{were}\footnote{In the 16th--18th
         cc., \Eng{was} was used almost universally with \Eng{you,} if
         this was used for one listener \cite{OED}.}]
      \end{enumerate}
      \item
      past subjunctive:
      \begin{enumerate}
	 \item
         first- and third-person singular: \Eng{w\={\ae}re}
         [\Eng{were}]
         \item
         second-person singular: \Eng{w\={\ae}re}
         [\Eng{wert}\footnote{Formerly \Eng{were;} the \ety{-t} is by
         analogy with the indicative; also, \Eng{was} was
         common in the 17th--18th cc., when this was even used as a
         plural form by those who used it also as an indicative
         plural \cite{OED}.\label{note:was}}]
         \item
         plural: \Eng{w\={\ae}ren} [\Eng{were}\footnote{See Note
         \ref{note:was}.}]
      \end{enumerate}
   \end{enumerate}
   \item
   Forms from \Eng{be}:
   \begin{enumerate}
      \item
      present indicative:
      \begin{enumerate}
	 \item
         singular\footnote{These forms are said to be regular in the
         dialect of southern England \cite{OED}.}:
         \begin{enumerate}
	    \item
            first person: \Eng{b\=eo}\footnote{Usually with future
            meaning \cite{OED}.} [\Eng{be,} \Gk{f'uw,} \Lat{fui}]
            \item
            second person: \Eng{bist}\footnote{Usually with future
            meaning \cite{OED}.} [beest]
            \item
            third person: \Eng{bi\th}\footnote{Future or present
            meaning \cite{OED}.} [beeth, bes]
	 \end{enumerate}
         \item
         plural: \Eng{b\=e\th} [be\footnote{Before 1250, this replaced
         \Eng{sind(on)} in the South and became standard for
         centuries; we see it in `the powers that be'
         \cite{OED}.}]
      \end{enumerate}
      \item
      present subjunctive\footnote{Indicative forms have been
      substituted for imperative occasionally since the 15th c., and
      are now usually used after \Eng{if, though, unless,} etc.;
      consider the 1611 Bible, I John 4:1: `Try the spirits whether
      they are of God' \cite{OED}.}:
      \begin{enumerate}
	 \item
         singular: \Eng{b\=eo} [be\footnote{In the second person,
         after \Eng{if, though,}
         etc., \Eng{beest} was common in thte 16th--17th
         cc.\ \cite{OED}.  Indeed, consider John Donne:
	 \begin{verse}
	 If thou beest born to strange sights,\\
         Things invisible to see,\\
         Ride ten thousand days and nights,\\
         Till age snow white hairs on thee\dots
	 \end{verse}
         and note that `snow' here is a subjunctive verb.}]
         \item
         plural: \Eng{b\=on} [be]
      \end{enumerate}
      \item
      imperative:
      \begin{enumerate}
	 \item
         singular: \Eng{b\=eo} [be]
         \item
         plural: \Eng{b\=eo\th} [be]
      \end{enumerate}
      \item
      infinitive:
      \begin{enumerate}
	 \item 
         \Eng{b\=eon} [be]
         \item
         \Eng{to b\=eonne} [to be]
      \end{enumerate}
      \item
      present participle: \Eng{b\=eonde} [being]
      \item
      past participle: (\Eng{ben(e)}\footnote{Not known in \OE.})
      [been\footnote{In 14th--15th cc., \Eng{be} was common in
      literature \cite{OED}.}]
   \end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}

  \begin{thebibliography}{100000}

\bibitem[COD]{CODEE}
T.~F. Hoad, editor.
\newblock {\em The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.}
\newblock Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986.

\bibitem[OED]{OED}
Murray et~al., editors.
\newblock {\em The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.}
\newblock Oxford University Press, 1973.

\bibitem[HMK]{OE}
James R.~Hulbert Samuel~Moore, Thomas A.~Knott.
\newblock {\em The Elements of Old English: Elementary Grammar, Reference
  Grammar, and Reading Selections.}
\newblock George Wahr Publishing Co., Ann Arbor, Michigan, tenth edition, 1977.
\newblock Revised, Enlarged and Corrected.

\bibitem[Smyth]{Smyth}
Herbert~Weir Smyth.
\newblock {\em Greek Grammar.}
\newblock Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets, 1980.
\newblock Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Eleventh Printing.

\end{thebibliography}

%\bibliographystyle{plain}
%\bibliography{../../../TeX/references}
\end{document}
