Part 41 (1/2)

-- 337 _Was_ is 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 had both a full conjugation and a regular one In Anglo-Saxon it had an infinitive, a participle present, and a participle past In Mso-Gothic it was inflected throughout with -s; as _visa_, _vas_, _vesue it has the power of the Latin _h German, _wisu_, _was_, _warumes_, _wesaner_ In Norse the s _entirely_ disappears, and the word is inflected with r throughout; _vera_, _var_, _voruhout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive It is found also as an infinitive, _beon_; as a gerund, _to beonne_; and as a participle, _beonde_; in the present English its inflection is as follows:

_Present_ _Conjunctive_ | _I_ _Plur_ Be Be | -- -- -- -- | Be Be Be Be | -- -- _Infin_ To be _Pres P_ Being _Past Part_ Been

-- 339 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: _byst_ in Anglo-Saxon is indicative, the conjunctive for that pretty bin_ (Cymbeline)--Here the word _bin_ is the conjunctive plural, in Anglo-Saxon _beon_; so that the words _every thing_ are to be considered equivalent to the plural fors_ The phrase in Latin would stand thus, _quotquot pulchra sint_; in Greek, thus, ? ?? ???a ? The _indicative_ plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not _beon_, but _beo_ and _beo_

-- 340 In the ”Deutsche Gralo-Saxon forms _beo_, _bist_, _bi_, _beo_, or _beo_, have not a present but a _future_ sense; that whilst _am_ means _I aes it is only where the form _am_ is not found that _be_ has the power of a present forues with the same power; as, _esmi_ = _I am_; _busu_ = _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_, Bohelo-Saxon a future tense, but that the word _beo_ has a future sense There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh for is a specilo-Saxon:--_”Hi ne _beo_ na cilde, solice, on doif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde”_--aelfric's Homilies ”They _will not be_ children, forsooth, on Doht be if they were full groaxen) in custoe”

-- 341 Now, if we consider the word _beon_ like the word _weoran_ (see -- 343) to et an ele anything_ have yet soain, froency, and this explains the subjunctive power of _be_ In English we often say _lo-Saxon

-- 342 _Am_--Of this form it should be stated that the letter -n of the first person, just as it is in _Greek_, and several other 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 forh between _aical connexion, there is one between _am_ and _is_ This we collect froes

1 2 3

Sanskrit _Asmi_ _Asi_ _Asti_

Zend _Ahmi_ _Asi_ _Ashti_

Greek ??? ??? ?st?

Latin _Sum_ _Es_ _Est_

Lithuanic _Esmi_ _Essi_ _Esti_

Old Slavonic _Yesmy_ _Yesi_ _Yesty_

Mso-Gothic _Ilo-Saxon _Eolish _A lines of Scott, the word _worth_ = _is_, and is a fraglo-Saxon verb _weoran_ = _to be_, or _to become_; German _werden_

Woe _worth_ the chase, orth_ the day, That cost thy life, rey--_Lady of the Lake_

CHAPTER XXIX

THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE

-- 344 The present participle, called also the active participle and the participle in -ing, is for_ In the older languages the ter -nd Like the Latin participle in -ns, it was originally declined