Talk:seon

Etymology 3
Why is the conjugation table for Etym_3 for ? Leasnam (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2019–March 2020
I can't find any clear citations for the infinitive sēon "to be". Wright only mentions wesan and bēon. Bosworth-Toller has sēon "to be" in a single citation to "The gospel according to St. Matthew in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian versions." (Kemble) where it's glossed "esse", but I wonder if this is a mistake. Furthermore, even if not a mistake, we can't construct an entire paradigm from it. Benwing2 (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The conjugation is largely stolen from . Also, the quotation has þū sē eart where other sources (e.g. here) have þū þe eart. --Lambiam 12:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sē there is the relative pronoun (you who art); sē is the older form of later þē/þe. Leasnam (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Does sē have any declensions or is it indeclinable like þē. I'd add the articles now but I'll wait for if anyone else does due previous criticism of my entries. - Writend
 * sē is declined thusly: Nom. sē; Acc. þone; Dat. þǣm; Gen. þæs; Ins. þȳ/þon. I believe that in early OE the relative pronouns may have been declined (for all genders and numbers (?), as they are in Modern German), but over time the unstressed þē/þe becomes more common (?). I'll need to check what's actually attested. Leasnam (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)