implied obligation?

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:28 am

Well done Andrew, and with more detail than I would have given.

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:16 am

There's more. I haven't mentioned was and were although it doesn't say it here, I think they are related to is. (I'll have to look in my SOED):
was from O.E. wesan, wæs, wæron 1st and 3rd person sing. of wesan "to remain," from P.Gmc. *wesanan (cf. O.S. wesan, O.N. vesa, O.Fris. wesa, M.Du. wesen, Du. wezen, O.H.G. wesen "being, existence," Goth. wisan "to be"), from PIE base *wes- "remain, abide, dwell" (cf. Skt. vasati "he dwells, stays;" cf. vestal). Wesan was a distinct verb in O.E., but it came to supply the past tense of am. This began to develop in P.Gmc., since it is also the case in Gothic and Old Norse.

were from O.E. wæron (past plural indicative of wesan) and wære (second person singular past indicative); see was. The forms illustrate Verner's Law (named for Danish linguist Karl Verner, 1875), which predicts the "s" to "z" sound shift, and rhotacism, which changed "z" to "r." Wast (second person sing.) was formed 1500s on analogy of be/beest, displacing were. An intermediate form, wert, was used in literature 17c.-18c., before were reclaimed the job.

Post Reply