The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

Singular. Plural. 1. I had been, 1. We had been, 2. Thou hadst been, 2. You had been, 3. He had been; 3. They had been.

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall be, 1. We shall be, 2. Thou wilt be, 2. You will be, 3. He will be; 3. They will be.

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall have been, 1. We shall have been, 2. Thou wilt have been, 2. You will have been, 3. He will have been; 3. They will have been.

Singular. Plural. 1. I may be, 1. We may be, 2. Thou mayst be, 2. You may be, 3. He may be, 3. They may be.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might be, 1. We might be, 2. Thou mightst be, 2. You might be, 3. He might be; 3. They might be.

Singular. Plural. 1. I may have been, 1. We may have been, 2. Thou mayst have been, 2. You may have been, 3. He may have been; 3. They may have been.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might have been, 1. We might have been, 2. Thou mightst have been, 2. You might have been, 3. He might have been; 3. They might have been.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I be, 1. If we be, 2. If thou be, 2. If you be, 3. If he be; 3. If they be.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I were,[263] 1. If we were, 2. If thou were, or wert,[264] 2. If you were, 3. If he were; If they were.

Singular. 2. Be [thou,] or Do thou be; Plural. 2. Be [ye or you,] or Do you be.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect. Being. Been. Having been.

NOTE.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art, Thou was, Thou hast been, Thou had been, Thou shall or will be, Thou shall or will have been. POT. Thou may, can, or must be; Thou might, could, would, or should be; Thou may, can, or must have been; Thou might, could, would, or should have been. SUBJ. If thou be, If thou were. IMP. Be [thou,] or Do thou be.

OBS. 1.—It appears that be, as well as am, was formerly used for the indicative present: as, "I be, Thou beest, He be; We be, Ye be, They be." See Brightland's Gram., p. 114. Dr. Lowth, whose Grammar is still preferred at Harvard University, gives both forms, thus: "I am, Thou art, He is; We are, Ye are, They are. Or, I be, Thou beest, He is; We be, Ye be, They be." To the third person singular, he subjoins the following example and remark: "'I think it be thine indeed, for thou liest in it.' Shak. Hamlet. Be, in the singular number of this time and mode, especially in the third person, is obsolete; and is become somewhat antiquated in the plural."—Lowth's Gram., p. 36. Dr. Johnson gives this tense thus: "Sing. I am; thou art; he is; Plur. We are, or be; ye are, or be; they are, or be." And adds, "The plural be is now little in use."—Gram. in Johnson's Dict., p. 8. The Bible commonly has am, art, is, and are, but not always; the indicative be occurs in some places: as, "We be twelve brethren."—Gen., xlii, 32. "What be these two olive branches?"—Zech., iv, 12. Some traces of this usage still occur in poetry: as,

   "There be more things to greet the heart and eyes
    In Arno's dome of Art's most princely shrine,
    Where Sculpture with her rainbow sister vies;
    There be more marvels yet—but not for mine."
        —Byron's Childe Harold, Canto iv, st. 61.

OBS. 2.—Respecting the verb wert, it is not easy to determine whether it is most properly of the indicative mood only, or of the subjunctive mood only, or of both, or of neither. The regular and analogical form for the indicative, is "Thou wast;" and for the subjunctive, "If thou were." Brightland exhibits, "I was or were, Thou wast or wert, He was or were," without distinction of mood, for the three persons singular; and, for the plural, were only. Dr. Johnson gives us, for the indicative, "Thou wast, or wert;" with the remark, "Wert is properly of the conjunctive mood, and ought not to be used in the indicative."—Johnson's Gram., p. 8. In his conjunctive (or subjunctive) mood, he has, "Thou beest," and "Thou wert." So Milton wrote, "If thou beest he."—P. Lost, B. i, l. 84. Likewise Shakspeare: "If thou beest Stephano."—Tempest. This inflection of be is obsolete: all now say, "If thou be." But wert is still in use, to some extent, for both moods; being generally placed by the grammarians in the subjunctive only, but much oftener written for the indicative: as, "Whate'er thou art or wert."—Byron's Harold, Canto iv, st. 115. "O thou that wert so happy!"—Ib., st. 109. "Vainly wert thou wed."—Ib., st. 169.

OBS. 3.—Dr. Lowth gave to this verb, BE, that form of the subjunctive mood, which it now has in most of our grammars; appending to it the following examples and questions: "'Before the sun, Before the Heavens, thou wert.'—Milton. 'Remember what thou wert.'—Dryden. 'I knew thou wert not slow to hear.'—Addison. 'Thou who of old wert sent to Israel's court.'—Prior. 'All this thou wert.'—Pope. 'Thou, Stella, wert no longer young.'—Swift. Shall we, in deference to these great authorities," asks the Doctor, "allow wert to be the same with wast, and common to the indicative and [the] subjunctive mood? or rather abide by the practice of our best ancient writers; the propriety of the language, which requires, as far as may be, distinct forms, for different moods; and the analogy of formation in each mood; I was, thou wast; I were, thou wert? all which conspire to make wert peculiar to the subjunctive mood."—Lowth's Gram., p. 37; Churchill's, p. 251. I have before shown, that several of the "best ancient writers" did not inflect the verb were, but wrote "thou were;" and, surely, "the analogy of formation," requires that the subjunctive be not inflected. Hence "the propriety which requires distinct forms," requires not wert, in either mood. Why then should we make this contraction of the old indicative form werest, a solitary exception, by fixing it in the subjunctive only, and that in opposition to the best authorities that ever used it? It is worthier to take rank with its kindred beest, and be called an archaism.

OBS. 4.—The chief characteristical difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood, is, that in the latter the verb is not inflected at all, in the different persons: IND. "Thou magnifiest his work." SUBJ. "Remember that thou magnify his work."—Job, xxxvi, 24. IND. "He cuts off, shuts up, and gathers together." SUBJ. "If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder him?"—Job, xl, 10. There is also a difference of meaning. The Indicative, "If he was," admits the fact; the Subjunctive, "If he were," supposes that he was not. These moods may therefore be distinguished by the sense, even when their forms are alike: as, "Though it thundered, it did not rain."—"Though it thundered, he would not hear it." The indicative assumption here is, "Though it did thunder," or, "Though there was thunder;" the subjunctive, "Though it should thunder," or, "Though there were thunder." These senses are clearly different. Writers however are continually confounding these moods; some in one way, some in an other. Thus S. R. Hall, the teacher of a Seminary for Teachers: "SUBJ. Present Tense. 1. If I be, or am, 2. If thou be, or art, 3. If he be, or is; 1. If we be, or are, 2. If ye or you be, or are, 3. If they be, or are. Imperfect Tense. 1. If I were,