An Introduction to Old English Edinburgh University Press

be + past participle, and the Old English equivalent is be¯on + past participle.
Thus we find many examples like:
(55) Æfter 
t
æ¯m 
t
e Romeburg g
.
etimbred wæs
After Rome had been built
But there is an interesting alternative construction in which the verb is
not be¯on but rather weor
†
an ‘become’, everything else remaining un-
changed. Thus we find examples such as:
(56)
t
æt hu¯s wear
e e
a¯ forburnen
the house was then burnt down
80
AN INTRODUCTION TO OLD ENGLISH
02 pages 001-166 29/1/03 16:09 Page 80

---

There has been much effort expended on the distinction in meaning
between the two alternatives. There is some agreement that quite often,
but not categorically, be¯on is used in stative contexts and weor
´
an in
dynamic contexts, and that variation is discernible in the differences in
meaning between (55) and (56). However, it is best viewed as a tendency
rather than as a rule occasionally violated. Some Old English writers
seem to have made more use of the distinction than others.
The above variation can seem confusing, since, of course, it has been
lost from the language since the Old English period, and we no longer
have the verb weor
´
an. Two points can be made here. Firstly, it is worth,
if possible, looking at either Dutch or German, for both these languages
have retained the equivalent of weor
†
an (Dutch worden, German werden,
albeit with different uses) and they both have a clear distinction between
the uses of that verb and of the equivalent of be¯on. Secondly, it is worth
considering in this context the uses of present-day English get (similar to
Dutch worden but not German werden), as in:
(57) She got fired by her boss
Another aspect of weor
†
an, and one I ignored earlier, is that it can also
replace be¯on in the other periphrastic constructions we have looked at
in this section. I did not discuss those examples earlier because they are
much less frequent than this use in the passive. You should, however, be
aware that they are possible.
Rather than using the periphrastic passive, Old English, again like
Dutch and German, could use man ‘one’, as in:
(58) mon mæg
.
g
.
ı¯et g
.
esı¯on hiora swæ
e
one could still see their track
Note that this usage, although reminiscent of present-day one, did not
have any of the social connotations often associated with one. The use of
man was perfectly normal and very frequent.
Despite the above, there did exist in Old English one morphologi-
cal passive, namely ha¯tte, hatton, passive forms of ha¯tan ‘call’. Typical
examples of this frequent form are:
(59) His fæder ha¯tte Gordianus
His father was called Gordianus
(60) … under twæ¯m consulum, Tı¯ta and Publia ha¯tton
under two consuls, called Tita and Publia
On the other hand, at least as frequent is the periphrastic structure as
in:
NOUN PHRASES AND VERB PHRASES
81
02 pages 001-166 29/1/03 16:09 Page 81

---

(61) and 
t
es de¯ofol
t
e is g
.
ehaten antechrist
and this devil is called the antichrist
It is probably foolish to attach too much importance to this morphologi-
cal passive. It looks rather like a idiomatic relic.
6.7 Mood
The default mood in Old English, as in present-day English, was the
indicative mood. In other words, Old English verbs used the indicative
paradigm unless there was some reason for using an alternative mood. It
is useful to describe the use of the indicative in terms of an ‘elsewhere’
condition, i.e. everywhere where there is no other specific requirement.
Apart from the fact that this makes the discussion here easier, it also
reflects the later development of the language.
The mood which is regularly opposed to the indicative is the subjunc-
tive mood. For present-day speakers of English, who may not even be
aware that there still remains, albeit somewhat vestigially, a subjunctive
mood, the subjunctive can be confusing; this is not so true for those who
know languages such as French and German, where the subjunctive
remains salient.
It is possible to list a large number of ways in which the subjunctive is
used in Old English, but it is more important to understand the general
principles which govern its usage. And these may be collected together
under one such principle, namely that the subjunctive is used when the
speaker does not wish to vouch for the factual status of what is being said.
Note that this is not the same as when a speaker claims that something is
false.
It happens that one of the few remaining uses of the subjunctive in
present-day English helps to show how this works. In:
(62) If I were [
] you (which I’m not!) I would study astrology
instead
the subjunctive is used because the statement made in that clause
is plainly false. Of course, in Old English, as in other languages with
the subjunctive, this massively simplifies the situation. The speaker
expresses his or her belief simply by his or her use of the subjunctive
rather than the indicative.
One common use of the Old English subjunctive is in clauses of
condition:
(63) se¯c
.
, g
.
if
t
u¯ dyrre!
seek if you dare!
82
AN INTRODUCTION TO OLD ENGLISH
02 pages 001-166 29/1/03 16:09 Page 82

---

but note that (63), unlike (62), is not counterfactual. An obviously similar
type occurs with clauses of concession:
(64)
t
e¯ah man swa¯ ne we¯ne
although they don’t think so
One rather notable use of the subjunctive occurs in reported speech,
where it is used to indicate that the truth of the reported claim is not
guaranteed. It is important to remember that this is not at all the same
as saying that the claim is false. The following long example is rather
interesting (I have italicised the three critical verb forms):
(65) Wulfsta¯n sæ¯de
t
æt he¯ g