Talk:The powers that be

Wouldn't the singular be "The power that is"?

History of (they) be?[edit]

Why "be" rather than "are"? "Be" doesn't seem to be subjunctive here. What is the history of the indicative use of a "be" form from Old English through to Tyndale? German has "ich bin" and "du bist" in contrast with English "I am" and "thou art", and of course there are regional English forms like, "Where be that blackbird now? I know where 'e be." Does Tyndale's use of it reflect his own regional dialect? What is the extent of its use in other literature after his time? Are there any other literary uses of it contemporary with the KJV? Koro Neil (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The powers that be (phrase). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I seemed to have messed up using the pageswap tool, feel free to trout me and/or fix any ensuing damage that might have occurred. (non-admin closure) qedk (t 桜 c) 21:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:DIFFCAPS / the only usage that is lowercase. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unlike the situations for when the only usage has a specific capitalization and editors argue that a reader writing that specific way can only mean they are searching for that title, the same cannot be said for all lowercase. That's just how people search. This helps no one other than you for some reason (and it's a bit annoying that I'll need to copy/paste my same argument to all nominations now). --Gonnym (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. But even if we disregard DIFFCAPS, it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on pageviews and significance. Station1 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to support this one, not per nom but per PRIMARYTOPIC. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Station1, even if people are using lower case it would clearly be primary by PT#2 and have the edge in PT#1. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Station1. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.