Episode 55: To Be or Not To Be

‘To be or not to be?’ That may be the question. But where did the various forms of our modern verb ‘to be’ come from?  And what about other Shakespearean phrases like ‘he hath,’ and ‘thou shalt,’ and ‘fear not?’ In this episode, we explore the Anglo-Saxon or Viking origins of some of these common verb forms in early Modern English. We also examine the history of the English word ‘not.’

30 thoughts on “Episode 55: To Be or Not To Be

  1. I wanted to say how much I’m enjoying this string of episodes on grammar and the Viking influences.

    I was particularly struck by some things from learning Danish (as well as German which you mentioned in the episode), which is descended from Old Norse.

    One is that Danish uses “er” for all present tense forms of “to be” – 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, singular and plural. I’d certainly say that’s related to the Old Norse that gave us “are”.

    The other thing is that Danish adds “s” to verbs to show passive voice. So “drengen følger” means “the boy is following”, but “drengen følges” means “the boy is being followed”.

  2. I also have been loving this string of grammar episodes. I love having the history for the irregular forms and, in the last episode, for the pronoun rules (and why they give us such trouble). My husband and I are always arguing (good naturedly?) about “It is I” so now I’ll just tell him that he is being an elitist and if he wants to be a stickler about linking verbs, he can go speak Latin.
    Thanks!

  3. Thanks for another fascinating and well-produced podcast. I’d like to add a footnote to the discussion of negation in French. Take the phrase “Il ne va pas” (he goes not). The word “pas” literally means step. So the phrase literally means “he walks not a step”. Figuratively it can just mean not working or out of order. A “faux pas” is a false step by the way. In days of yore there was more than one way to formulate negation in French. Same syntax but with other words than “pas”. So you could say “ne voit point” (don’t see a dot), “ne dit mot” (not say a word), “ne mange mie” (not eat a crumb), or “ne bois goutte” (not drink a drop). All of these still make sense and are still used for emphasis but mostly “pas” is used.

    • Well-said, and for more reference information on French negation:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_grammar#Negation

      As an aside, I always found the fact that “rien” means nothing (even when not a connegative with “ne”), rather interesting; etymologically, it comes from the accusative case of Latin “rēs” (“rem”), which means “thing” and ultimately comes from the PIE *rehis, “wealth” or “goods.” So, “wealth/goods” became “thing,” which in turn became “nothing;” language is strange.

  4. Late to the party here but enjoyed this episode very much (always been a grammar nerd). I usually end up summarizing “what I learned today” to my 16 year old daughter and when explaining how “be” was originally a different verb and one could say “I be” or “he be”, she said “Oh, like, let it be”. I was struck by how quickly she came up with that, but I think she was right.

  5. I love the series (along it is taking me time to listen to them all). But, please, can you drop the “you all”? It grates every time I hear it and it takes a few moments to get back into the flow.

    • He’s trying to account for the fact that modern English doesn’t have a second-person plural entirely distinct from the second-person singular; in other words, “you” and “you” can mean “you-one-person” and “you-more-than-one-persons.”

      I prefer “you” and “you all” to something like “you singular” and “you plural,” but what would you have him say?

    • I’m glad you’re enjoying the series, but this is one of those requests that I’m afraid I cannot abide. “You all” is a commonly accepted alternative to the plural “you” in American English. I am not sure how often I actually use it in the podcast, but I doubt that I will stop using it since it is part of my normal vocabulary. Be thankful, I could use my more natural “y’all.” 🙂

  6. I think that it’s worth discussing the conjugation of “be” when it produces the subjunctive in English; generally, people say that English has no inflected subjunctive, but really it does.

    For examples, the phrase “be that as it may” conjugates “to be” as “be;” in fact, in the present subjunctive, “to be” conjugates as “be” in all forms. Similarly, the past subjunctive conjugates as “were” in all forms; for example, “if I were a rich man,” not “if I was a rich man” (though contemporary English will say the latter because of confusion with past indicative construction). Additionally, the imperative mood used for commands follows the same construction as the present subjunctive, as in “Be quiet!”

    Lastly, you can form the present subjunctive for other verbs by removing the -s from all forms, in other words: (that) I own, (that) you own, (that) he own, (that) we own, (that) they own. I put the “that” in parentheses because it would almost always precede the verb. Contemporary English speakers tend not to utilize the subjunctive, however, accept in stock phrases maintained historically (e.g. “Heaven forbid,” “suffice to say,” etc.). And of course, the imperative for most verbs just comes from omitting “you,” as in “Go to bed!” and “Tell the truth!”

    • Hi Ryan. Great insight. I assume from your comments in this thread and others that you have a formal background in linguistics in general or English in particular. Is that presumption correct?

      • I have had formal study and training in linguistics, yes, though my expertise is actually Spanish-language literature, specifically Mexican literature.

        I don’t work in academia, however, so my study in recent years has been largely autodidactical.

  7. “Ain’t” can also mean “have not” or “has not,” both of which at one time contracted to “han’t.” Eventually, “han’t” elided into “ain’t,” and so we get: “He ain’t [hasn’t] done that since he was a kid,” etc.

    Additionally, it’s likely that “ain’t” came to mean “are not” and “is not” because many dialects (including Cockney, as mentioned) pronounced “aren’t” and “isn’t” closely enough that eventually speakers settled on the same contraction; imagine if you spoke a non-rhotic (when you don’t quite pronounce the letter “r”) or used glottal stops (like when you make that stop between “uh” and “oh” in “uh-oh”), then you get (phonetically) “ahnt” and “ih-nt,” which pretty much yield “aint.”

  8. Great podcast, Kevin! I started listening about a week ago, and I haven’t been able to stop since. Now, several friends and family members are following suit.

    I would like to make one observation: I feel that there is a distinct, if perhaps subtle, meaning imparted by some double-negative phrases.

    To me, phrases like “it’s not unusual,” “I don’t disagree,” and so on, express a degree of uncertainty, ambiguity, or non-commitment resting between the two extremes of “It’s unusual” and “It’s commonplace,” or “I disagree” and “I agree,” respectively. In instances which are subjective, or at least debatable, this is often called for, especially when one desires to address a viewpoint without taking a stance diametrically opposite. To say “It’s not unusual” is not, in itself, to say that “it’s commonplace.” Instead, it’s challenging the idea that the situation at hand is particularly uncommon. Along the same lines, to say “I don’t disagree” doesn’t necessarily express full agreement, but suggests a concession of at least part of the point, while withholding tacit acceptance. It might be followed by a “but…” or the but may remain unspoken, but in either case, it is not the same as a full assent.

    In any case, I’ve never considered these true “double negatives” as the term is typically applied, but rather a negation or challenging of a negative viewpoint.

    It’s not impossible that I’m wrong, though.

  9. Another great episode. Only a small quibble: what evidence do you have that Old/Middle English negation was calqued on Old French negation as it existed in 1066? If we want to use a comparative diachronic approach, then we have to be careful to use the versions of both languages as they existed at a particular point in time. So, in this case, it would seem anachronistic to conclude that Old/Middle English negation was influenced by the Middle/Modern French “ne [verb] pas” construction, which, as I understand, emerged in the 12th century.

    • From what I’ve read, Old French did have the emphatic negators that eventually became “ne…pas,” though they by no means started out with the same construction and frequency that we see in Middle and Modern French. Latin even had some “minimizing” idiomatic expressions, but they weren’t really used for everyday negation; Old French inherited some of those idioms and then expanded on them. While these corresponding emphatic negators were not universal, they saw more and more use as Old French evolved. By the time Middle French arrives, the construction is not novel, but it is established.

      • Interesting. Aren’t we just speculating, though, that this construction, which was just emerging in French, influenced negation in Middle English?

        • I think it’s fair to call it speculation, yes, though I suspect that some people would prefer to call it a hypothesis; as such, I agree that we should use caution, but ultimately it seems likely that the emphatic negation was an areal feature of this particular Sprachbund. So I suppose the question becomes “to what degree did these languages develop and spread this feature?”

          • Or maybe it is just a coincidence–both Old French and Old English had unstressed negative particles that were no longer suited for the purpose of clearly conveying negation to the listener (a point which Kevin explained very well). In any event, your Sprachbund hypothesis is interesting (and thanks for teaching me a new word).

          • Hi Jasper. I think you and Ryan have analyzed the issue very well. At the time I researched and prepared these grammar episodes several years ago, I didn’t maintain a specific list of sources for each part of the discussion. I still have all of my sources in my library, but I would have to go back to track down the specific source(s) that referenced the French construction as an influence. I did indicate in the episode that French used negative elements other than “pas” after the verb, so it is fair to say that the modern “ne pas” construction wasn’t fully settled at the time. I do intend to revisit these subjects when I get to early Modern English grammar, so I will try to go back and pull my original sources. If I can put my hands on them, I will include them here.

  10. I’ve noticed a similar problem in Modern American English with the “can’t”/”can” pair. It’s not unusual for a listener to ask her interlocutor to clarify whether she means “can” or “cannot.”

  11. I am looking forward to the transcripts of these middle episodes!
    I can’t quite make out whether the competitor verb “wend” is related to “wander” or “wonder”. The former makes more sense to me, I guess.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.