To be or not to be

The verb “be”

The verb be is a linguistic complex: rather than evolving from a single root, it was stitched together from three completely different PIE verbs over thousands of years.

Note

In linguistics, this phenomenon is called “suppletion”, when a single verb paradigm borrows forms from unrelated roots to fill out its conjugation table (much like how go borrowed its past tense went from the unrelated verb wend).

The three ancestral roots

Every form of be used today traces back to one of four PIE roots that existed over 5,000 years ago:

PIE Root

Original Meaning

Proto-Germanic

Modern English Forms

*h₁es-

“to be, exist”

*immi / *isti

am, is, are

*bheuH-

“to grow, become, come into being”

*beu-

be, been, being

*wes-

“to remain, dwell, live, be”

*wesaną

was, were

PIE roots

The Three Distinct Semantic Worlds

To a PIE speaker 5,000 years ago, these three roots covered entirely different scenarios:

Static identity

Modern English descendants: English am, is, are 

*es- = Static identity & pure existence

Original Meaning: “To exist inherently” or “to be [a specific identity].”

The Vibe: Permanent, unyielding identity.

That man [is] my brother

God [exists].

Dynamic process & growth

Modern English descendants: be, been, being

**bʰu*ː- = Dynamic process & growth

Original Meaning: “To sprout,” “to emerge,” or “to come into being.”

The Vibe: Transition, physical growth, or entering a new state.

The seed [grows/emerges] into a tree

He [becomes] angry.

Physical dwelling

Modern English descendants: was, were

*wes- = Physical dwelling & spatial presence

Original Meaning: “To dwell,” “to lodge,” or “to pass the night in a physical place.”

The Vibe: Physical presence tied to a location or a period of time.

The traveler [lodges/dwells] in the tent tonight.

Note

If you told a PIE speaker that a single word meant “I exist eternally,” “I am growing into something,” and “I stayed at a hotel last night,” they would have found it confusingly vague.

The “To be” patch work

*ROOT 1: es- (Identity / Existence)

*ROOT 2: bheu- (Growth / Becoming)

*ROOT 3: wes- (Dwelling / Remaining)

am

be

was

is

been

were

are

being

This didn’t happen overnight. In Old English (around 1000 CE), speakers actually maintained a distinction between Root 1 (*es-) and Root 2 (*bʰuː-):

  • The eom group (am, is, are): Used for current, immediate reality (“I am here right now”).

  • The bēon group (be, shall be): Used specifically for future time, habitual actions, or eternal truths, “Trees be green in summer” or “I be going tomorrow”.

Middle English simplified its grammar between 1100 and 1500 CE, and instead of keeping different verbs for “immediate existence” versus “habitual/future existence,” they merged the two systems into one single grid, assigning:

  • am/is/are to the present tense

  • be/been to infinitives and participles.

Note

Spanish famously splits the concept of “to be” into two entirely separate verbs: ser and estar.

The journey to abstract grammar

To a modern speaker, saying “I was tired” contains zero physical or spatial imagery.

Abstract grammar doesn’t exist at the start of a language. Human minds cannot invent pure, abstract grammatical particles out of thin air.

Instead, languages create abstract tools by taking concrete, physical, spatial experiences and slowly stripping away their physical meaning over centuries.

Linguists call this process grammaticalization or semantic bleaching.

The Journey from “space” to pure time:

To express the abstract idea of “existed in a past state,” ancient PIE speakers had to grab a concrete physical verb that everyone already understood.

They chose **wes-*, which meant “to lodge, dwell, or pass the night in a physical space.”

The shift from spatial dwelling to abstract past tense unfolded in three cognitive steps:

I lodged/dwelled in that cabin (spatial, physical place)

I remained/stayed in that state (durative, time+pace)

I was in at state (abstract past, pure tense)

All that survived was: duration in a prior state.

We do this because time is invisible, but space is tangible.
You can see a path, touch a wall, or feel yourself standing in a room.

You cannot touch “yesterday” or “the future.”

Because space is concrete, human systematically use spatial coordinates as metaphors to build temporal grammar.

We do this every day without realizing it:

A long meeting (length in space to duration in time

A short break

We are moving towards a crisis (physical motion to future time)

I’m going to study (physical orientation to timeline)

Looking forward to the weekend

Putting the past behind us

Note

  • Spanish “Estar” comes directly from the Latin verb stāre, which meant “to stand on your feet”

  • French “Venir de” uses the physical verb for “to come from [a place]” to build a past tense

  • Swahili “Kutoka” uses the physical verb meaning “to come out of [a space]” as an abstract marker for “since” or “from a time.”