Beon vs Wesan: What's the difference?

[aleitner]

There is little discussion surrounding the suppletive Old English verb for 'to be'. both 'Wesan' (or 'Eom') and 'Beon' can be translated as 'to be' but what are the differences in their usages? Let's take a look at what a couple of writers have said over the years.

Discussion

The most practical solution to this problem [beon vs. wesan] is to accept Campbell's statement [...]

- "Mitchell's Syntax, 1985 (§664)"

The distinction of the pres. indic. tenses eom and beo is fairly well preserved in OE: beo expresses what is (a) and invariable fact [...], or (b) the future [...], or (c) iterative extension into the future, e.g. bið storma gehwylc aswefed 'every storm is always allayed' (i.e. on all occasions of the flight of the Phoenix, past and to come) [Phoen. 185-6]; eom expresses a present state provided its continuance is not especially regarded, e.g. wlitig is se wong 'the plain is beautiful'.

- "Campbell's Statement (p350)"

[...] but to bear in mind that the use of is/sind rather than bið/beoð cannot be used to prove anything about the implications of a particular example

- "continued in Mitchell's Syntax, 1985"

Summary

Beon and Wesan both express the present 'to be'
However, Beon also can express an invariable fact or a habitual state. Wesan expresses a present state that does not emphasize the future

Examples

'Ic beo her' can mean I am here or I will be here depending on the context..

'Ic eom her' means I am here

Thanks to @fadiend for gathering the quotes