'If there be an...' Why be?
In some English dialects (Black County in Sedgley), an alternate form of "be" overlived right up until the middle of the last yearhundred (c. 1950) and was indicated by the following:
I bin = I am
you bist = you are
we bin = we are
And by these notings of the verb "be":
"Ow bist?" = "how are you?"
"Bisn't gooin up the shaps?" = "Aren't you going up to the shops?"
<<1) "But what does it smell like?" Fernando asked. " What odor has it? If there be an odor it must be a definite odor."
2) "then," Pilar went on, "it is important that the day be in autumn with rain, or at least some fog, or early winter even now thou shouldst continue to walk...>>
I haven't read the book, but here's my two cents:
1) But what does it smell like? What odor does it have? If there is an odor it must be a definite odor.
You can just read "is" for "be". This is sort of an archaic way of putting it, but familiar to native speakers from literature.
2) It is important that the day {should} be in autumn with rain, or at least some fog....
This is actually not archaic at all. "It is important that something be"... is normal modern English. It's not exactly "is", because you are not talking about something that already exists in this state, but about how it should be, or must be, or might be -- it sort of doesn't exist yet, but it's not really in the future either -- you're talking about a hypothetical state that might or might not reflect reality.
You will see this same structure in all kinds of utterances:
It's imperative that you be on time for this interview.
It's better that you be honest with him.
Now, you could structure the same sentences with "are" and be perfectly correct, but it doesn't quite come off the same way. Using "be" makes your action more active, while "are" sounds more passive. It's more like the implication of "be assertive" or "be home by dark" -- you are actively charged with making that happen, or embodying that attribute.
If you read older texts, sometimes you see a "long" version of this wording -- "It's imperative that you should be on time". That's fallen out of use today, but perhaps it illustrates the meaning more clearly.
I thought that the "something be" and similar was just American English?
Thanks a lot to all and especially ot Uriel
Uriel:
<<2) It is important that the day {should} be in autumn with rain, or at least some fog.... >>
Are you saying that there is an elliptic "should"? That is not correct in my dialect English, and has apparently been introduced in British English due to their failing to retain actual subjunctive, and therefore needing to mark it with the modal "should".
<<Now, you could structure the same sentences with "are" and be perfectly correct,>>
Not if you intend the same meaning. "It's better that you be honest with him" means "You should be honest with him, because it is better". It's better that you are honest with him" means "You are honest with him, and it's better".
Hans
<<I thought that the "something be" and similar was just American English?>>
To what are you referring?
Uriel:
<<2) It is important that the day {should} be in autumn with rain, or at least some fog.... >>
Are you saying that there is an elliptic "should"? That is not correct in my dialect English, and has apparently been introduced in British English due to their failing to retain actual subjunctive, and therefore needing to mark it with the modal "should".
No, I'm not saying there is really supposed to be a "should" there, but I thought it might make it easier for the original poster to get the general sense.
<<Now, you could structure the same sentences with "are" and be perfectly correct,>>
Not if you intend the same meaning. "It's better that you be honest with him" means "You should be honest with him, because it is better". It's better that you are honest with him" means "You are honest with him, and it's better".
That's right. It's grammatically correct, but the meaning isn't necessarily exactly the same. That's what I was trying to convey. To be fair, i think it CAN be the same, depending on how you use it, but it can also be interpreted as you do in your example.
Hans
<<I thought that the "something be" and similar was just American English?>>
To what are you referring?
It's not an Americanism at all; it's a feature of the language in general when used in the way we've been describing.
There are, however, some American dialects (hillbilly and AAVE) that use "be" in more ways than this, and DO substitute it where standard speakers might have is or are. That's not what we are talking about here. And truth be told, it sounds to my ears like an archaism that's been preserved. You hear a lot of those in Southern and Southern-derived speech. But that in itself points to an original British source for the practice, probably related to the dialect that the guest at the top of the page mentions, which also preserves some of these old-fashioned features.