Now I Am Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds — J. Robert Oppenheimer

Oppenheimer famously quoted this from The Bhagavad Geeta in the context of the nuclear bomb. The way this sentence is structured feels weird to me. “Now I am Death” or “Now I have become Death” sound much more natural in English to me.

Was he trying to simulate some formulation in Sanskrit that is not available in the English language?

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    >where you’d use “be” instead of “have” for the present tense, if the main verb denotes a change of state (such as “become”).

    But in that example isn’t the “am” replacing the “have”?

    >I have become death

    >I am become death

    • mick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes. The conjugates for “to be” are: I am, You are, He/she is, etc.

    • pianoplant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you think about it the fact that modern English uses “Have” in this context (primarily describing something you own) is actually weirder than “Am” (something you are)

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s almost like a different word, a hononym. To have and to have done something in the past. Neither being nor possessing really works for the “have done”. Being works for become because become has being as a part of its meaning as well as a transition from some previous thing that was before.

        Though both are used similarly. I have ran. I am running. I will run. I guess have is still the odd one out since will is future tense for am. Though was also works. I was running. But was is more specific than have, it feels like “I was running” is a part of a narrative that includes a specific time, while “I have ran” doesn’t require anything else. It’s like you possess the previous action of running, so maybe it is apt. Language is funny.

        • Butters@lemmywinks.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t this get into something like past vs past perfect, future vs future perfect?

          I can’t remember this shit from grade school.

    • lightsecond@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      to be is an irregular verb that takes the forms am, are, and is in the present tense. to become is a different verb which has the forms become, and becomes.