WHat is the guide for usage of this?

Question

1) Now she had a lover of whom most women might be glad, were he rich or poor, and she had been resolved to transfer a substantial part of her wealth to him.

2) After a few restless nights, and having noticed that my sweet infant was rarely sleeping at all, be it night or day, I began to really wonder about her.

Could you explain why in the first sentence it is used "were" and in the second "be".

If we change them i.e. were for the 2 and be for the 1, will we get a different meaning?

What is the general guide for usage here?

Avangi · Accepted Answer

Great question! Some of our members will hasten to point out that this is not exactly modern English.

The difference seems to be that in 1) we're talking about only one man, and the subjunctive is in order (if he were rich or if he were poor).

In 2), we're talking about multiple occasions, some being night and some being day.

In 1), if she were fortunate enough to have multiple lovers (*** forbid!), I believe the "be" version would be appropriate.

Each night she chose the handsomest man to go home with, be he rich or poor, and promptly forgot about him the next day.

I hope someone else can make more sense of this.

Best wishes, - A.

Edit. I may be out of order in implying that the "be" version is not subjunctive. It may well be.

Another interesting old-fashioned usage here is "and she had been resolved etc."
To the modern ear, it suggests that she is no longer resolved; but I believe it means that "she had become" resolved, and still is so. (passive voice vs. "to be" plus adjective complement)

AlpheccaStars · Answer

TicceNow she had a lover of whom most women might be glad, were he rich or poor, and she had been resolved to transfer a substantial part of her wealth to him.

The best explanation I can give you is that the first sentence is a direct statement in past tense. The phrase is adjectival (modifying "lover" and hypothetical (conditional), and refers to the possible state of the lover in that past time.

In the present, "be" would be used:

If she has a lover, be he rich or poor, she will transfer...

The second sentence is in the form of reported speech, and the phrase is adverbial, referring to the time of noticing - it not in the past time with respect to "notice," but present to that time.

I noticed that, be it night or day, the baby was not sleeping.

Were can also be used. The adverb phrase then modifies "was sleeping"

I noticed that, were it night or day, the baby was not sleeping.

Avangi · Answer

TicceIf we change them i.e. were for the 2 and be for the 1, will we get a different meaning?

I agree with a-

's that both forms work in #2 while in #1 the meaning must be substantially changed to work with the opposite form.
(I read the original as "Most women would be glad to have such a lover as she now has, regardless of his financial situation.")

- A.

Avangi · Answer

Ticce1) Now she had a lover of whom most women might be glad, were he rich or poor, and she had been resolved to transfer a substantial part of her wealth to him.

Come to think of it, the tense doesn't really seem to affect the phrase in question:

Now she has a lover of whom most women might be glad, were he rich or poor, and she has been resolved to transfer a substantial part of her wealth to him.

I think this is because the phase "of whom most women might be glad, were he rich or poor" doesn't really have a tense.

Compare this to:
Fee-fi-fo-fum,
I smell the blood of an Englishman.

Be he alive, or be he dead,
I'll grind his bones to make my bread.

In this case, when we switch to past tense, we change the "be" to "were" :

I smelt the blood of an Englishman.
Were he alive, or were he dead,
I'd grind his bones to make my bread.

CalifJim · Answer

TicceWhat is the general guide for usage here?

My two cents.

Don't use either one in your own writing or, heaven forbid, your own conversation, unless you are deliberately imitating the English of many years ago.

These expressions sound ridiculous in modern English.

CJ

Avangi · Answer

It's still okay to read old books, but do it under the covers with a flashlight! [H]

AlpheccaStars · Answer

CalifJimThese expressions sound ridiculous in modern English.

Well, the first is from a classical English who-done-it novel by S. Fowler Wright. (1874-1965). It uses a characteristically Victorian language and style, even though it was written in the 1950's.

The second is recent, from an article by an African American freelance writer. It is in a very different style...

CalifJim · Answer

AlpheccaStarsIt uses a characteristically Victorian language and style, even though it was written in the 1950's.

So I was right about this one, at least -- a deliberate attempt to evoke another era.

AlpheccaStarsThe second is recent, from an article by an African American freelance writer. It is in a very different style...

I'm not sure if I'm right about this one, however. You say "in a very different style", as if maybe here too there is a deliberate attempt to create a style that is out of the ordinary?

In such artistic literary uses, I would not say that those expressions sound ridiculous. I hope that clarifies my opinion.

CJ

Avangi · Answer

To be really really modern, we should recognize that in these days of political correctness, ridicule is going out of style.

We even have anti-bullying laws!

- A.

Ticce · Answer

Avangihe difference seems to be that in 1) we're talking about only one man, and the subjunctive is in order (if he were rich or if he were poor).
In 2), we're talking about multiple occasions, some being night and some being day.
In 1), if she were fortunate enough to have multiple lovers (*** forbid!), I believe the "be" version would be appropriate.

I really doubt that the catagory of number has anything to do with this issue. At least I have never heard of this coorelation. If you have any material to read on the topic I would be glad to learn it.

WHat is the guide for usage of this?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions