Talk:beon-wesan

What's the difference between eom and bēo, for example? aren't both first-person indicative present singular? --84.77.147.145 10:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically the beon forms were used to express the so-called "gnomic present" - see w:Gnomic, or this short explanation. Widsith 10:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. It sounds interesting --84.77.147.145 11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Beon / buan

The article makes it seem like *bu- "dwell" is the original form, but the sense of *beu-, be, seems to be more original according to the PIE cognates. Wakuran 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

not a "compound" as usually understood

I can't say I like the nomenclature by which this verb is known as a "compound", especially not in conjunction with the titling of the article with a hyphen. It all strongly gives the unfortunate suggestion that forms of OE "be" were expressed in each instance with two verbs in succession, one from beon _followed by_ one from wesan, which is entirely not the case. Can we move the article, to beon/wesan or something? And is "compound" traditional? -- cause I wanna change it if not. 4pq1injbok 05:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the current presentation is very confusing. It makes it sound like beon-wesan is an Old English infinitive meaning "to be". —Ruakh_TALK 19:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. This entry is hard to read but it seems that rather than "compound" we're really talking about w:suppletion and the current title here would be like having an English entry titled be-was. — hippietrail (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)