Today I realised for the first time that in the KJV Bible both thou wast and thou wert are used, and I was intrigued by the need to have two forms for the same person and number of the past tense simple in a language which generally has so few verb inflections.
While looking it up I found the confusing statement:
As verbs the difference between wast and wert is that wast is (archaic) second-person singular simple past tense indicative of be while wert is (archaic) second-person singular simple past tense of be (used with the pronoun "thou"). (Wikidiff)
It's even hilarious: A is different from B, because A = C while (!) B = C.
Leaving jokes aside, I also found this little reference on a site dedicated to Shakespeare:
wast – were – 2nd person singular, past tense – (RJ II.iv.74)
- Thou wast never with me [Q wert]
wert – were – 2nd person singular, past tense –
(2H4 III.ii.162)
- I would thou wert a man’s tailor
Does anyone know what the real difference there is between the two? If there isn't any, then why two forms?
Best Answer
Wert is more likely to be subjunctive
In the King James Bible, as well as in some other texts, wert appears only in "subjunctive" contexts. Using the online KJV bible search engines at King James Bible Online and the University of Michigan Bible: King James Version -- Simple Searches shows that wert always occurs in a construction that licenses the subjunctive mood such as an if clause.
However, there is not always a difference: wert can also be found as an indicative form. Be in its history shows a multitude of forms that aren’t all strictly used for separate functions.
The forms wast and wert are both exceptions to the general pattern for the occurrence of the second-person singular suffix -st, which usually occurred only in the indicative mood of the present tense (for all verbs), and in the indicative mood of the past tense (for weak verbs: verbs with a dental suffix in the past tense). The subjunctive mood is regularly formed without -st in the second person singular, just as it is formed without -s or -th in the third person singular.
Therefore, the expected second-person singular past subjunctive form of be is thou were; and because were is not a weak verb, the Old English second-person singular past indicative did not have -st either.
The forms wast and wert come from irregular addition of the -(s)t suffix after the Old English period.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
The form wert showed overlap both with indicative wast and with subjunctive were (and similarly, in the present, the form beest showed overlap with both indicative art and subjunctive be).
Goold Brown's "Grammar of English Grammars" from 1882, provides the following observations about the usage of wert, noting that some grammarians prescribed it as a subjunctive form in opposition to indicative wast, but that usage did not necessarily conform to that prescription:
(page 375):