did the english language use two different auxiliary verbs for the past tense at any point in history?

Question

While I was watching the movie Elizabeth I noticed (presumably medieval) usages such as "we are arrived...", "we are come", etc, instead of "we have arrived...", "we have come..." I was wondering if using "have" for all verbs is a relatively recent change, and English used both "to be" and "to have" as past tense auxiliary verbs at some point in the past, as French continues to do (etre and avoir for different verbs.) If so, were the rules similar, using to be for most movement verbs? Were the rules as rigid as in French?

Thanks for any help you can provide.
Emil

Answer 1

These are not actual "past" tense forms, but "present perfect". (There is also the "past perfect" which would use the auxiliary forms "had" and "was".) Your instincts are correct that the generalized use of "have" is relatively recent... though the perfect with forms of 'to be' is not quite *completely* dead.

At one time forms like "is/are come" were preferred. You'll find it in Shakespeare and so of course, as you noted, in the time of Elizabeth I. . But it lasted longer than that. You'll still find the form in 19th century English (as in the novels of Jane Austen or Charlotte Bronte).

This form of the perfect is considered to emphasize the RESULT of some prior action (and so "are come" emphasizes that, as a result of their having come they are NOW HERE). This is now considered archaic, at least for the most part. So, if you find it in literature or certain religious uses (see below) it is not wrong. But you wouldn't want to use it in ordinary speech yourself.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010912

The older form is, however, preserved in certain expressions, esp. in religious use. The King James Bible used forms like "is come", you'll hear it in Watts's 18th century hymn "Joy to the world! The Lord IS come!" And above all in the Easter exclamation "Christ is risen!"

(This last is another fine example of how the 'resultative' perfect works. The summary confession first declares, "Christ HAS died" referring to a past event. This is followed by "Christ IS risen!" The point is not simply that he rose at some point in the past, but that, as a result, he is NOW alive. Likewise "He is come!" was used to emphasize that, as a result of his coming he is NOW here.)

Answer 2

Whatever you see in a movie is probably wrong anyway. Hollywood has a reputation for doing that. For example in the film 'Braveheart' there are 114 errors of historical fact some of them so glaring it was embarrassing.

In England (starting with Queen Victoria) and following Prince Albert's introduction of 'Royal Protocol', the queen always referred to 'we' instead of 'I' to show that when she spoke she spoke for everyone. So she may have said 'We are arrived' instead of 'I have arrived' using the plural tense instead of the singular. This was not common in Elizabeth I's reign so the film has probably got it wrong.

Answer 3

Bruhaha is right. An example of this is "He is gone," which is still a pretty common sentence in current English.