What is the only verb in the English language still capable of indicating number in the past indicative, as well as being the only verb having separate forms for first, second, and third person in present tense, indicative mood(mode)?

MaggieG 5

'To be' -- I AM, you ARE, he IS, I/he WAS, they WERE. Apr 06 05, 1:26 PM

Baloo55th

And before anyone quotes 'you were' as being singular, it isn't. The singular is correctly 'thou wert', but the plural is used instead (as in French when not addressing close friends, family and small children). And Maggie, strictly you should say 'they are' as an example rather than 'you are' for similar reasons and avoiding confusion. 'You' in common use doesn't indicate number at all, unless the speaker is an old fashioned Quaker. Apr 06 05, 1:48 PM

kaylofgorons

Or unless you're a Southerner and use *y'all* as a plural and use *you* for singular. *Be* was the verb I was looking for. YAY, Maggie! Apr 06 05, 1:55 PM

MaggieG 5

Kayle didn't ask for the number in the present indicative tense. She asked for the first, second and third persons. Is 'you' not the second person then? And I deliberately chose 'they' as an example in contrast to my 'I' in the past indicative tense to indicate number as 'you' could have been either singular or plural. Did you really need to be so picky about something as simple as this, Baloo? Apr 06 05, 2:18 PM

Baloo55th

You know me and nit-picking. Can't see a nit without wanting to pick it..... Apr 06 05, 3:14 PM

gmackematix

You don't be from round these parts. Apr 06 05, 5:36 PM

mibmob

Wow! I missed all this! To be has a subjunctive too - If I were to do this, I would etc. Would that I were rich etc. Apr 07 05, 5:33 AM

Baloo55th

To be also has interesting negative variants like ain't and bain't. Anyone know how these different bits came about, by the way? To go doesn't have a past indicative - it uses a past indicative of to wend instead - so I presume these 'irregular' bits of to be could be survivals of other verbs, maybe. Apr 07 05, 3:06 PM

kaylofgorons

Ain't, now there's an interesting one. I wonder where it comes from... perhaps "No, I am not!" became "No, I ain't!" It could have passed to other persons from there "He ain't coming; you ain't invited." I've never heard of bain't before--could it be "been not" or "been to"? I haven't heard it used before. Apr 07 05, 3:46 PM

lanfranco

In the 18th century (that is, Early Modern English), "ain't" was a perfectly acceptable form -- a version of "aren't." It became unacceptable when people began using it in the wrong context and with the wrong person. You could say, "Ain't I attractive?" for "Aren't I [am I not] attractive?" but not "Ain't she sweet?" And I do believe that there was at least one English dialect (in Devon, maybe?) in which "baint" was being used into the 20th century -- as in "Baint she sweet?" Apr 07 05, 4:27 PM

kaylofgorons

Aren't looks like Are not, which would be bad English. I guess it doesn't matter in this context since it isn't trying to be good English anyway. Apr 07 05, 4:36 PM

lanfranco

And all praise to mibmob for mentioning the subjunctive. Few people seem to know how to use it and the conditional these days. Would that I were living in the past. (And no, I don't want to hear about bad plumbing. The plumbing I have now ain't so great.) Apr 07 05, 5:15 PM

Baloo55th

Lewis Carroll reckoned that can't should be ca'n't, because there was an n of can omitted as well as the o of not. Why he couldn't see that one ' could eplace the n and o of not, I don't know. I think it was Carroll that also suggested that 'aren't I' should be 'amn't I' but he didn't say how to pronounce it... Hi, peasy! Apr 07 05, 6:02 PM

peasypod

Enough already with the apostrophes. Do you need some home-made ear-rings too? Apr 07 05, 6:31 PM

kaylofgorons

Amn't I... Probably like "am-int I" the same as we sometimes say "Are-ent I". From there it would slur into "amt" the same as "aren't" has become "arnt." Apr 07 05, 8:02 PM

Legolaschic

Amn't I/am I not/aren't I( ...i will say neither ain't nor bain't!) the smartest one here for not joining the conversation... Apr 07 05, 9:07 PM

lanfranco

But you did, Legolaschic. Apr 07 05, 9:13 PM

Legolaschic

Ah, there you are mistaken my dear Ian, for I have not truly entered the conversation. I have merely made a small side comment, which neither supports nor argues against the views of the actual participants in the conversation. Therefore, I have not yet joined the conversation in question. Though, I will now agree to the fact that we have begun a new conversation, which I am taking part in. Apr 07 05, 9:26 PM

kaylofgorons

Greetings, Lego. Glad you had some time last night to visit. Apr 08 05, 8:23 AM

Legolaschic

Why thank you Kaylo, greetings to you as well… I'm afraid I've been more lazy than pressed for time, but I suppose I'm back for a while... : ) Apr 08 05, 11:30 AM