One of the bewilderingly many ways to form words in English is by prepending “be-.” That is, the syllable “be” is put in front of another word, which then becomes a new word. If English was read top to bottom instead of left to right, of course, the modified, bespoke word would be beneath the “be,” but that’s really beyond the scope of this message.
Adding “be-“ can have a number of kinds of effects. It can turn a noun (friend) into a verb (befriend). It can be added to adjectives (belittle), existing verbs (bespeak), and a bewitching variety of other outcomes. The meaning of “be-“ varies; it can mean “completely,” “all over,” or “affecting a great deal”.
The “be-“ prefix comes from Old English, and it persisted into Middle English, where it was used in combination with words borrowed from French and other languages. “Becalm,” “beguile,” “belabor,” and “beseige” are all English words formed that way.
In the past couple of centuries the practice of prefixing “be-“ has fallen off a great deal, and while there are many, many words formed this way, they tend to have a bit of an archaic sound to modern ears. A great many of the words have become obsolete, too, and are gradually moving from dictionaries of active English to lists of archaic words. You’re unlikely to encounter “bespattered” nowadays, but back in the 1600s the language was positively bespattered with it. (Or “it was spattered all over the language”). Note that usage affects sentence structure here; many “be-“ words still have meaning without the prefix but you use them a bit differently, like “bespattered” and “spattered.” It’s not just words that can sound archaic; the very order of the bespoken things can connote the sense of a past age as well.
Nevertheless there are some obsolete “be-“ words that could be worthy candidates for reintroduction. Their meanings are almost all still obvious. After a day’s work when you becomma your writing, you might bedinner someone and accompany them to a scary movie for a complete behorroring. Somebody bemonstered that clown in It, for sure, but that doesn’t stop the film from being bestared by benighted audiences bereft of their senses.
