s. 398. In the Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1051, it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon forms _be['o]_, _bist_, _bidh_, _beodh_, or _be['o]_, have not a present, but a future sense; that whilst _am_ means _I am_, _be['o]_ means _I shall be_; and that in the older languages it is only where the form _am_ is not found that _be_ has the power of a present form. The same root occurs in the Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as, _esmi_=_I am_; _b['u]su_=_I shall be_, Lithuanic.--_Esmu_=_I am_; _buhshu_=_I shall be_, Livonic.--_Jesm_=_I am_; _budu_=_I shall be_, Slavonic.--_Gsem_=_I am_; _budu_=_I shall be_, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense (or form), but that the word _be['o]_ has a future sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form. The following is a specimen of the future power of _be['o]n_ in Anglo-Saxon:--"_Hi ne _be['o]dh_ na c['i]lde, sodhlice, on domesdaege, ac _be['o]dh_ swa micele menn swa swa hi, migton be['o]n gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde._"--Aelfric's Homilies. "They _will not_ be children, forsooth, on Domesday, but _will be_ as much {346} (so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age." s. 399. If we consider the word _be['o]n_ like the word _weordhan_ (see below) to mean not so much _to be_ as to _become_, we get an element of the idea of futurity. Things which are _becoming anything_ have yet something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of _be_. In English we often say _may_ for _shall_, and the same was done in Anglo-Saxon.--"_Ic dhe secge, he[`o] is be dham h['u]se dhe Fegor h['a]tte, and n['a]n man nis dhe hig w['i]te_ (_shall, may know_) _aer dh['a]m myclan d['o]me_."--Aelfric's Homilies, 44. s. 400. _Am._--Of this form it should be stated, that the letter _-m_ is no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is in all the Indo-European languages. It should also be stated, that, although the fact be obscured, and although the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the forms _am_, _art_, _are_, and _is_, are not, like _am_ and _was_, parts of different words, but forms of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although between _am_ and _be_ there is no etymological connexion, there is one between _am_ and _is_. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages. 1. 2. 3.