# Here <be> dragons. Subjunctive?



## A good headache

Hi!

I apologize if my question has already been discussed somewhere here. Although, I did google-check the phrase against wordreference.com, and it did not appear as the topic of a thread.

The phrase "here be dragons" is supposed to have been used on old _English_ maps. Cartographers on the Net say it's nonsense, and the phrase only appeared in Latin on the so-called Lenox Globe. This Latin expression is "hic sunt dracones".

It is also used by programmers in comments indicating sections of, uh, dangerous code that should not be messed with.

The question is: in what form does the verb _be_ stand here? I had the idea that it might be Subjunctive. But there is also the opinion that it is an old form of indicative. It is in the Latin variant, and the hackers' usage doesn't allow of any hypothesizing, either.

So, what's your take on it?


----------



## cj427

My impression of that saying, as well as other, similar ones, has always been that old-timey explorers were not exactly sticklers for grammar.  It's just bad English, as is "We be pirates!" and "Be ye scurvy dogs?  Arrr!"

Man, I love talking like a pirate.


----------



## A good headache

Or, at least, not for our times' grammar, I should think.


----------



## Edgardg

Hi A good headache.

I think it is not a mistake. Just have a look: 
http://www.draconian.com/

Best wishes
Edgar


----------



## Edgardg

I also found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_be_dragons

It is subjunctive

Best
Edgar


----------



## Outsider

Although I'm not a native speaker, I have to say that the subjunctive makes no sense in this kind of sentence. If you ask me, "Here be dragons" is a mock sentence imitating the way modern people _think_ medieval folk talked.
Or perhaps mimicking uneducated speech, as *Cj427* suggested.


----------



## Old Novice

I can offer no help on the formal grammar, but I wonder if there is a clue in the fact that the phrase is often stated as, "Here _there_ be dragons."  Does that version shed any light on the issue?


----------



## Outsider

Well, "Here there be dragons" sounds more authentic, but, as far as the subjunctive is concerned, it still does not convince me.


----------



## Edgardg

Outsider said:


> Well, "Here there be dragons" sounds more authentic, but, as far as the subjunctive is concerned, it still does not convince me.



Hi Outsider,

"so be it",  "if need be" are subjunctives. What makes "here be .." look wrong to be a subjunctive?

With best wishes
Edgar


----------



## Thomas1

Outsider said:


> Well, "Here there be dragons" sounds more authentic, but, as far as the subjunctive is concerned, it still does not convince me.


I am trying to find some rationale on this as my mother tongue doesn't have this mood and I don't quite know what semantical (or other) changes it brings about, could you please explain why _subjunctive mood_ is not pertinent here?


----------



## Outsider

"Here there are dragons." --> This is a plain statement of fact.

Now, the subjunctive mood is normally employed to express something which may not be factual, such as a wish, or a request, or a hypothesis. It's also used mostly in subordinate clauses (though there are exceptions).

"Would that there were dragons here!" --> This might be said with the subjunctive.

Of course, to settle the matter we would need someone with expertise on ancient English, which I am not.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Outsider said:


> "Here there are dragons." --> This is a plain statement of fact.
> 
> Now, the subjunctive mood is normally employed to express something which may not be factual, such as a wish, or a request, or a hypothesis. It's also used mostly in subordinate clauses (though there are exceptions).
> 
> "Would that there were dragons here!" --> This might be said with the subjunctive.
> 
> Of course, to settle the matter we would need someone with expertise on ancient English, which I am not.



You're right that the subjunctive isn't pertinent here in this straightforward presentation of facts. 

'be' was used in Middle English (as Chaucer students will know) in place of 'are', i.e. as the present indicative 3rd person plural form of the verb 'to be'. It *was* also a subjunctive form (still very occasionally used), but that's beside this point


----------



## Edgardg

Outsider said:


> "Here there are dragons." --> This is a plain statement of fact.
> 
> Now, the subjunctive mood is normally employed to express something which may not be factual, such as a wish, or a request, or a hypothesis. It's also used mostly in subordinate clauses (though there are exceptions).



There are certain phrases where the subjunctive mood is used, and often they don't convey the idea of a request or hypothesis, e.g. "the powers that be", "come what may", "suffice it to say", "far be it from me to say ..."

Knowing that I can't see a reason why "here be ..." can't be a subjunctive. To me it looks like one, though of course I may be wrong


----------



## Thomas1

We have _if the need be_ and this is emplyed with future meaning and it implies that you don't know whether there would be a need or not.

Using the same type of construction in _here be dragons_ could be rephrased here should/could be dragons (with future implications). This is not an indicative statement but presumptive one denoted by a verb in the subjunctive mood. So you express a hypothesis some doubt why is it not suitable here?


----------



## Outsider

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> You're right that the subjunctive isn't pertinent here in this straightforward presentation of facts.
> 
> 'be' was used in Middle English (as Chaucer students will know) in place of 'are', i.e. as the present indicative 3rd person plural form of the verb 'to be'. It *was* also a subjunctive form (still very occasionally used), but that's beside this point


Thanks! So the sentence can be right, after all. 



Edgardg said:


> There are certain phrases where the subjunctive mood is used, and often they don't convey the idea of a request or hypothesis, e.g. "the powers that be", "come what may", "suffice it to say", "far be it from me to say ..."
> 
> Knowing that I can't see a reason why "here be ..." can't be a subjunctive. To me it looks like one, though of course I may be wrong


"The powers that be" --> This is probably another instance of "be" being used for "are", as in Chaucer.
"Come what may" --> There is uncertainty in "come" and "may". We do not know in advance what may (or not) come.
"Far be it from me to say..." --> This is a sort of command/request, which is also covered by the subjunctive.
"Suffice it to say" --> I'm not entirely sure about this one, but it could be another command, hence the subjunctive.


----------



## Outsider

Thomas1 said:


> Using the same type of construction in _here be dragons_ could be rephrased here should/could be dragons (with future implications). This is not an indicative statement but presumptive one denoted by a verb in the subjunctive mood. So you express a hypothesis some doubt why is it not suitable here?


But that's not what the sentence is supposed to mean. It means that there _are_ dragons in that region of the map.


----------



## rsweet

The subjunctive is often used to express, doubt or uncertainty, to indicate a condition that is contrary to fact, or to express a wish.

If you *were* a pirate, you would talk like that.
It's important that she *be* on time.

 I can see how showing that dragons exist at the edges of a map could be interpreted as needing the subjunctive.


----------



## Edgardg

"The powers that be" --> This is probably another instance of "be" being used for "are", as in Chaucer.

_  Could be _


 "Far be it from me to say..." --> This is a sort of command/request, which is also covered by the subjunctive.

_  Sort of, maybe rather advice and the person who is giving it wants to seem polite_



 Best wishes
 Edgar


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Outsider said:


> Thanks! So the sentence can be right, after all.



Yes. It's easy to start feeling embattled when everyone seems to be disagreeing with you, especially if they're wrong


----------



## Thomas1

Outsider said:


> But that's not what the sentence is supposed to mean. It means that there _are_ dragons in that region of the map.


Well, I found that the existence of dragons is not so obvious since they are rather creatures of imagination than of reality  so carrying on along this course of thinking would the use of subjunctive plausible?


----------



## Outsider

Thomas1 said:


> Well, I found that the existence of dragons is not so obvious since they are rather creatures of imagination than of reality  so carrying on along this course of thinking would the use of subjunctive plausible?


That's what makes the subjunctive tricky. Yes, we are talking about fictional animals -- but the sentence assumes they're real.


----------



## Edgardg

rsweet said:


> The subjunctive is often used to express, doubt or uncertainty, to indicate a condition thta is contrary to fact, or to express a wish.



Hi Rsweet,

I've been told that the subjunctive is also used to emphasize importance.


----------



## Thomas1

Outsider said:


> That's what makes the subjunctive tricky. Yes, we are talking about fictional animals -- but the sentence assumes they're real.


Thank you for the commentaries. 
Thus, concluding if I wanted to express my unerctainity about the existence of dragons in an area (because I didn't explore it yet) could I use _here (there) be dragons_ = here should/could be dragons?


----------



## A good headache

Well, I see that we still have the same three options:
1. that it is mock-illiterate English;
2. that it is and old form of the Indicative;
3. that it is the Subjunctive.

I'm inclined to think that it is the second, for the reason that it would be odd for a map-maker to write something along the lines of " here might be dragons, or here might not be, I do not really know what I am talking about". If those areas were just unexplored territories, _Terra Incognita_ or _Unknown land_ would suffice. But, of course, I may be wrong.

Thank you for your suggestions.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

It is surely the present indicative.

My mother's rural Oxford English dialect would conjugate the verb thus:

oi be
thee be
'e be
we be
you be
they be.


----------



## Kenneth Garland

Giordano's example of the Oxford dialect is typical of rural speech all over the South-West of England.   The 'pirate speech' mentioned in an early post is based on Westcountry dialect.   This suggests that 'here be' is a conservative version of an older form.


----------



## languageGuy

I found this interesting bit of history.

In the region [i.e. China, called East India on the Lenox globe] near the equatorial line, is seen 'Hc Svnt Dracones,' or here are the Dagroians, described by Marco Polo as living in the Kingdom of 'Dagroian.'


----------



## englishman

Kenneth Garland said:


> Giordano's example of the Oxford dialect is typical of rural speech all over the South-West of England. The 'pirate speech' mentioned in an early post is based on Westcountry dialect. This suggests that 'here be' is a conservative version of an older form.



I think it's clear that in this case "here be" is in the indicative. And expressions like "I be" and "He be" in the indicative are still in general use. I have in-laws in Somerset that speak like this today.


----------



## rsweet

englishman said:


> I think it's clear that in this case "here be" is in the indicative. And expressions like "I be" and "He be" in the indicative are still in general use. I have in-laws in Somerset that speak like this today.



This theory makes the most sense. It's interesting that expressions like these in the US are associated with ebonics, African American Vernacular English (AAVE), or Black Engish. When I looked this up, I found that AAVE has features of English spoken in England and Ireland during the 16th and 17th centuries.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

rsweet said:


> This theory makes the most sense.



It isn't a theory, it's a fact. As I pointed out above, 'be' was used in Middle English in place of 'are', i.e. as the present indicative 3rd person plural form of the verb 'to be'.

It doesn't look like many students of English are familiar with Chaucer, which is either a pity or a scandal, depending how you look at it :-(


----------



## foxfirebrand

First of all, _hic sunt dracones_ is in the indicative mood in Latin.

Still, the form "here be dragons" was substituted for a more literal translation.  These mottoes were printed at the edges of known territory, along with others-- such as _Terra Incognita._ 

Is it subjunctive?  Yes, because it is an admonishment-- it suggests a course of action without resorting to cruder imperative-mood messages such as _beware! _or _keep out!_ 

The admonition is used not because of a belief in dragons but because the mapmaker didn't want to rule out the possibility that things unknown to science might be encountered.

I don't think this has anything to do with colorful dialogue, or the literary use of dialect.  Cartography was deemed a scientific craft, and taken in deadly earnest-- lives depended on the accuracy of every little penstroke.

Cartographers and navigators were precisely the kind of people who were least apt to lend credence to mythology, especially superstitions born out of fear-- crews were hard enough to recruit in the post-Medieval period.

Yet it hadn't been proven exactly what _did_ exist or occur at the "ends of the earth," not until Magellan, at least.  So mapmakers who weren't bold enough to omit the warnings put them in the language of conjecture-- or simply drew them, along with the personified "four wind" icons and baroque compass points you also see on archaic maps.
.
.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

I tremble to disagree with Foxfirebrand, but you certainly don't have to go back to Chaucer for examples of "be".

"Up, and got our people together as soon as we could; and after eating a dish of cold cream, which was my supper last night too, we took leave of our beggarly company, though they seem good people, too; and over most sad Fenns, all the way observing the sad life which the people of the place which if *they be* born there, they do call the Breedlings’ of the place, do live, sometimes rowing from one spot to another, and then wadeing, to Wisebeach..."  This comes from Sam Pepys.

It does seem to me that the expression indicates verified and authenticated sightings of the beasts by reliable witnesses.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

Ssorry about my previous post.  I've chosen a bad example by picking one of SP's subjunctives.  I'll try to find a better quote.


----------



## Outsider

I told you the subjunctive was tricky.


----------



## markshin

Hi!  

I've just been researching the journey of English dialects around the world, and wonder whether this is completely off the mark:

the verb "to be" has three roots that were different Old English verbs: S root (including "am/is/are"), B root (including "be/being/been") and W root (including was/were).

(?) "be" was used rather than "am/is" in West Saxon. West country sailors used "be" instead of "am/is". (Dialect speakers still do.) Their maps (and maps were usually the most valuable possessions on a ship) would have been written in West country dialect.

Most English sailors were from the West country. (not only the Pirates of Penzance). Many of the sailors going from Europe and Africa to America would have spoken West country dialects. 

AAVE use the "be" came from contact with those dialects.

Any ideas to corroborate or refute this?


----------



## Loob

Interesting post, markshin - what you say sounds entirely reasonable to me 

Welcome to the forums!


----------



## Matching Mole

Welcome to the forums Marshkin. Thanks for this interesting contribution.

I agree, it sounds reasonable. It's not the subjunctive, that's for sure. However, I would have thought the "be" usage was more widespread and perhaps was common amongst British seafarers in general as part of a naval argot, perhaps. The west-country may have simply been a region (being relatively isolated in those days) where this form was preserved for longer.


----------



## rzcortes

The Latin HIC SUNT DRACONES can only admit of the indicative mood. Hence, if this were to be translated in modern English, it ought to be: *Here, there are dragons.* However, as the students of medieval English have affirmed, the BE was often used for ARE in the indicative mood. Thus, HERE, THERE BE DRAGONS, is actually the medieval rendition of the indicative mood even though to the present-day ear it does sound subjunctive, i.e., "Here, there (may) be dragons." But if this were subjunctive, the Latin ought to have read, HIC SINT DRACONES.


----------



## natkretep

Late to the party, but like markshin's explanation. Wikipedia (West Country English - Wikipedia) confirms the use of the _be_ form in the West Country, though some have suggested this is the result of some Celtic influence.


----------



## PaulQ

Also late - but #25, which puts flesh on the bones of #2, seems to be authoritative and credible to me.


----------



## ewie

If the _be_ in _Here be dragons_ is (or _be_) a subjunctive, I'll eat my wooden leg.


----------



## manfy

ewie said:


> If the _be_ in _Here be dragons_ is (or _be_) a subjunctive, I'll eat my wooden leg.


It seems it won't have to come to that -- and there's also no need to "blame" the Celts or any other regional minority. 

According to this thread and the etymology info posted there, _are_  as the plural indicative of _to be_ only appeared in the early 16th century and it took the whole century before it replaced the previous _be_ to a large degree.


> [E]arly in 16th c. _are_ made its appearance in standard Eng., where it was regularly used by Tindale. _Be_ continued in concurrent use till the end of the century (see Shakespeare, and Bible of 1611), and still occurs as a poetic archaism, as well as in certain traditional expressions and familiar quotations of 16th c. origin, as 'the powers that be."



Considering that the Lenox Globe dates from some time around 1510, it's quite safe to assume that "Here be dragons" is the proper Middle English form of "Here are dragons"; the map makers, who were probably not in their teenage University years any more at that point, either didn't know of this fancy new _are_ or they just chose to ignore it.

PS: Of course, this is not scientific and/or linguistic proof, but it is a very plausible explanation, I'd say.


----------

