Bebeodan and beodan

If we go further down the scale of frequency presented in Table 24, we stop by the next two verbs of PE necessity, i.e. bebeodan and beodan. Although both used with largely the same meaning, they differ markedly when it comes to the rate of recurrence, bebeodan being nearly twice as popular as beodan in the DOE Corpus. As might be expected from the similarity of form, both verbs share the common origin in the PIE root *bheudh- ‘to be aware, to make aware,’ as noted by WATKINS (ed. 2000). OED points to Sanskrit budh ‘to present’ and proto-Germanic *beudan ‘to communicate, inform, announce, proclaim command’ as the subsequent developments of the PIE form while in

the Slavic branch *bheudh- has a reflex in, for example, Old Church Slavic b
děti and Polish budzić ‘to wake up’ (cf. BAŃKOWSKI 2000 and BORYŚ 2005).

Apart from OE beodan, the proto-Germanic form spawns Gothic biudan, Old Saxon biodan, Old High German biotan (modern German bieten ‘to offer’), Old Frisian biada and Old Norse boiða (Swedish bjuda). Bebeodan is one of a few prefixed derivatives of beodan in Old English (for a review of forbeodan, another verb derived from beodan, the reader should refer to 4.2.3).¹³ As a consequence, bebeodan and beodan are both members of Class II of strong verbs. Curiously enough, out of the two verbs, it is only the less frequent beodan that continues till Present-Day English. OED cites PDE to bid as a form which in Late Middle English results from beodan and biddan ‘to ask’ (PIE *gwhedh- ‘to ask, pray’) merging together. DOE cautions that already in Old English some forms and uses of beodan and biddan considerably overlap.

Little differentiated are bebeodan and beodan when it comes to the meanings they are credited with. The semantic specifications given in B&T to bebeodan are 1) ‘to command, order,’ 2) ‘to offer, give up, commend,’ 3) ‘to announce’ whereas with beodan we find 1) ‘to command, bid, order,’ 2) ‘to announce, proclaim, inspire, bode, threaten,’ 3) ‘to offer, give, grant.’ With the sense of deontic necessity, which is realized in the ‘to command, order’

specification, clearly taking precedence over the other meanings, it seems plausible to consider some of the actual uses of the verbs which actualize this sense:

(4.3) Eadwerd cyning byt ðam gerefum eallum, ðæt ge deman Edward king commands the reeves all, that you judge swa rihte domas swa ge rihtoste cunnon,

as just judgments as you most-right can

‘King Edward commands that all reeves should make as just judgments as they possibly can’

(LawIEw 1) (4.4) Ne bud þu me na ælmessan to syllan,

not order thou me no alms to give

‘Do not order me to give alms’

(PPs (prose) B8.2.1)

13 As for the origin of the prefix be-, WATKINS (ed. 2000: 3) notes that it, along with the preposition bi, be (PDE by), has PIE ambhi- ‘around’ as its source. Be- functions as an intensive prefix, yet, it may also signal no discernible difference in meaning (cf. B&T) in comparison with a non-prefixed form.

(4.5) Noe soðlice dyde ealle ða ðing, ðe him God bebead.

Noe indeed did all the things, which him God commanded

‘Indeed Noe did all the things that God ordered him to do’

(Gen 7.5) On the whole, the same deep structure pattern can be detected with both verbs:

subject NP — bebeodan/beodan — indirect object NP — direct object NP

which has a number of surface realizations. The subject NP in the nominative remains a constant element when the sentence is active. A preferred complementation type in the case of beodan is the indirect object NP in the dative followed by the direct object which takes the shape of a þæt-clause, as in (4.3) (cf. MOLENCKI 1991 who, following WARNER 1982 and THRÁINSSON

1979, argues in favor of treating OE complement clauses as NPs). Other possibilities include the dative NP ensued by the inflected or bare infinitive ((4.4) is illustrative of the former, more frequent, option) as well as the direct object rendered as an NP in the accusative.¹⁴To be sure, passive sentences with beodan are rather uncommon. All these options are also available to bebeodan and in (4.5), for instance, bebeodan comes in a relative clause where the relative particle ðe stands for the direct object NP ealle ða ðing in the main clause. Unlike beodan, the lion’s share of the attestations of bebeodan are traceable to passive structures. Example (3.4.31) in section 3.4.5 fits into this category. Note that a passive transformation involves the shift of function of the þæt-clause from the direct object in an active sentence to the subject, as in (3.4.31).

Generally, the deontic necessity encoded in the meaning of bebeodan and beodan seems no less obvious than that of hatan. It might be argued that the necessity of beodan is somewhat weaker than hatan and bebeodan, especially since the merging process of this verb with biddan is slowly underway thereby causing beodan to shade into a more reconciliatory sense of ‘asking,’

‘entreating.’ Yet, the prototypical examples above show no trace of that. All the examples, with the notable exception of (3.4.31), implicate the animate Antagonist (the subject NP) and Agonist (the indirect object NP). Much as in

14 In LOS’S(1999: 167—172) view, OE verbs of deontic necessity, which she calls “verbs of commanding and permitting,” are consistent in that they make use of two different syntactic and thematic structures. The syntactic structure like that of beodan, that is, one with a dative indirect object NP and a direct object is diagnostic of a three argument thematic configuration consisting of Agent, Recipient and Theme. Conversely, the ACI detected in the case of hatan points to a two-argument thematic frame made up by Agent and Theme only. The accusative NP and the infinitive that constitute the ACI are construed as one argument, namely Theme.

the case of hatan, that a given Antagonist should plausibly be a source of necessity stems from his or her high position in a particular social or religious state of affairs (consider the king vs. his reeves in (4.3) and God vs. those who believe in him in (4.4) and (4.5)). In (4.4) it can be noticed that with negation, it is the necessity that is negated rather than the proposition, hence we have to do with the meaning ‘do not order me to...’ Lastly, a passive structure with bebeodan as in (3.4.31) diverges from examples (4.3) through (4.5) by the fact that the Antagonist does not formally appear although his presence and identity (God) can be logically gathered from the meaning of the sentence. The absence of the Antagonist results from the þæt-clause taking over the role of the subject.