The Bret. form is ema, ma, Corn. yma, ymma, ma, pl. ymons; the last form confirms the assumption of oe by preserving the o.
(3) oes occurs after nyt (nid), nat (nad), the interr. part. a, and od ‘if’, in each case when the subject is indefinite. nyt oes represents *nitaisti < *n’ ita esti ‘there is not’. The positive *esti ita ‘there is’ > *estīta > yssit. Similarly ossit ‘if there is’ < *ā ’stīta § 222 v (1). In Ml. W. yssit is only a survival, having been generally replaced by y mae. As nid oes means literally ‘there is not’, it is natural that its subject should be indefinite. But early examples of a definite subject occur: cinnit hoys ir loc guac hinnuith in pag. reg. cp. ‘though there is not that empty place in the regular page’; nat oes hi w.m. 470 ‘that there is not [such a one as] she’; in r.m. 113 this becomes nat ydiw y vorwyn ‘that the maid is not’.
(4) yssyẟ, syẟ, etc. < *estíi̯o < *estí i̯o § 162 vi (1). ys < *esti § 179 ix (3)—panyw ‘that it is’ § 222 x (2).
(5) oeẟ see § 75 iv (2), § 180 ii (3), yttoeẟ § 180 ii (3), q.v.
iv. (1) From √bheu̯ā- ‘be’ there was an iterative derivative *bh(u̯)ii̯ō which gives Ir. bīuu ‘I am wont to be’, Lat. fīo. The three persons of the sg. *bhu̯íi̯ō, *bhu̯íi̯ēis, *bhu̯íi̯ēit would all give W. byẟ, which was afterwards inflected byẟaf, byẟy, byẟ by analogy. In Kelt., Ital., Germ., there are also athematic forms of this verb; thus there were sg. 2. *bhu̯ī-si > Lat. fīs, 3. *bhu̯ī-ti > Lat. fīt, W. bid. [Lat. fīo takes its long ī from these.] The Early Ml. W. fut. bi is a future of this form, representing *bhu̯ī-sēit (or *bhu̯ī-ēit?). The forms byẟhawt, biawt are of course formed by adding ‑(h)awt to byẟ, bi.
(2) The opt. of *bh(u̯)ii̯ō, sg. 1. *bh(u̯)íi̯oi‑m̥ might give byẟwn, but prob. the whole tense is a later formation from byẟ.
(3) The perf. bu-um, etc. is obviously formed from the 3rd sg. by the addition of the perf. endings ‑um, etc. § 182 iv (1). The 3rd sg. bu, Ir. bōi, bāi represent Kelt. *(be‑)bāu̯e < Ar. *bhe-bhōu̯e: Av. bavāva; § 76 iii (5).
(4) The pres. subj. bwy(f) represents the ‑se- fut. of √bheu̯ā‑; thus *bh(u̯)ā-sō > bwy etc. § 183 ii.
The impf. subj. sg. 3. bei < *bii̯ī́t < *bai̯ī́t < *bh(u̯)ə-si̯ḗt. From bei was deduced bwn as in bei et-vwn ii (3); but later bewn, as if bei were *be-ei; in Mn. W. when bei had become bai, the 1st sg. became bawn; and in the late period bai itself came on the analogy of this to be treated as bâi and sometimes written bae, see § 185 i (3).
The initial p- is for *b-h- with ‑h- from pl. forms; see § 183 ii (3).
(5) The impv. sg. 2. byẟ is from *bh(u̯)íi̯e the crude stem of *bh(u̯)íi̯ō. The 3rd sg. bid is from *bh(u̯)ītó the 3rd sg. opt. mid. of stem *bhu̯ā‑; see § 184 ii (1) and § 180 iv (2). The 3rd sg. boed or poed is a re-formation from the subj. stem. The pl. forms are obvious re-formations.
(6) The v.n. bod implies Brit. *butā, which (as there is both in Ir. also) may be a Kelt. formation beside *bhu-t‑is which gives Ir. buith: Gk. φύσις. Like other v.n.’s bod has been made mas.; but in compounds it remains f., as ha-fod, eistedd-fod, preswyl-fod.
