(3) In the impf. the consuet. ind. byẟwn is distinguished from the subj. bewn (bawn); the latter is never ind., but the former is used in the subj., as pei byẟut, etc. Ỻ.A. 67; also bythit w.m. 104, cf. (4).
The form pei for *pei y, before a vowel pei yt, ‘were it that’ is used in the sense of ‘if’ with the impf. subj. or plup. With the 3rd pers. infixed pron. ’s, it is bei ys w.m. 424, later pei ass w.m. 17. In Mn. W., the forms are pe, ped, pe’s; also with b‑: be g. 128, 238, etc.
As the subj. stem seems to have been b- or p- the orig. form of sg. 1. 2. should be bwn, *but like 3. bei; so in the pl. The phrase pei yt vwn, occurring as bei et-vwn w.m. 71, was contracted early to pettwn ‘if I were’, 2. pettut, 3. pettei; pl. 1. pettem, etc. Thus bettut kynn decket ac Absalon Ỻ.A. 67 ‘if thou wert as fair as A.’; pettei do. 68; Mn. W. pettwn b.cw. 10 ‘if I were’, petynt ‘if they were’. But pei byẟei Ỻ.A. 67–8, be bai H.D. p 99/494, etc., are also used.
Traces occur of an old plup. with stem bu‑: sg. 3. buei r.p. 1045, bwyat (read bu-ẏat) do. 1038, pl. 3. bỽyn (read bu-yn) ib., buyint b.b. 96.
(4) Beside the pres. subj. proper bwyf, the form byẟwyf with ind. stem is used; also bytho T.A. c. i 342, bythont w.m. 47, with byẟ + h‑, a new subj. stem.—The impers. boer m.a. i 20 is doubtful; the context suggests sg. 3. bo. But E.P. ps. xciv 13 uses boer.—3rd pl. bwynt b.t. 5; boent a.l. i 106, L.G.C. 240.
(5) As stated above (2), bit (bid) is usually impv.: Bit ẏ waet ef arnam ni s.g. 25, Ỻ.A. 83 ‘His blood be upon us’; na vit ofɏn arnawch r.m. 147 ‘let there be no fear on you’ i.e. fear not; bit w.m. 22, r.m. 14 ‘let there be’. The form bint Ỻ.A. 81 ‘let them be’ is formed from bid; it is rare in Mn. W., L.G.C. 240.
iii. (1) For the origin of w͡yf, w͡yt, yw, ym, ych, ynt, see § 179 ix (3). yd- is the affirmative particle § 219 ii; yttynt < *yd hynt; from this ytt- spread to other persons.
(2) y mae, mae occurs at the beginning of a positive statement, or positive rel. clause; it seems to have meant originally ‘there is’ or rel. ‘where is’, since mae at the beginning of a question means ‘where is?’ Thus mae ymma Matholwch w.m. 39 ‘there is here M.’, y lle ymae Abel Ỻ.A. 118 ‘[in] the place where Abel is’, mae y mab? w.m. 29 ‘where is the boy?’ The m- of mae is never mutated; this points to *mm (Corn. ‑mm‑) < *sm. The y m- is prob. ym- (often so written in Ml. W.) representing the locative in ‑smi of the *e- demonstrative (nom. sg. *es § 159 iv (1)), as in Umbr. loc. esme ‘in hoc’ < *esmi, Av. ahmi. Thus *esmi est, ‘here is, there is’ pronounced *ésmii̯est > *ymoeẟ § 75 iv (2), whence by loss of ‑ẟ and the change of oe to ae after a labial § 78 i (1) and ii (2) we have ymae. The rel. form similarly from *i̯osmi est. The interrogative form mae ‘where is?’ appears to be a new development in W., with the y- dropped because it seemed to be affirmative; it prob. comes from indirect questions in which mae is rel., as manac imi mae Arthur w.m. 123 ‘tell me where Arthur is’. Corn. has pyma? as if from *qu̯osmi est? The pl. y maent (≡ ỿmā́ɥnt) must be a new formation from y mae.—
