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?
There’s a discussion here:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3402/is-it-acceptable-to-use-is-become-instead-of-has-become
For the lazy:
See also the Christmas carol “Joy to the world, the Lord is come.”
Lord is come. Rock is push. Flag is win.
Lord is Baba.
And Baba, as always, is You.
French and other languages still have the distinction, while English has switched to using “has” everywhere.
Yup it’s still like this in Dutch. It’s “ik ben … geworden” instead of “ik heb … geworden”.
I think grammatical simplifications like this are part of the reason why English is so popular as a second language around the world. It’s just easier to learn than many other languages. Another big simplification for example is that nouns are not gendered like in most other European languages.
Is “ik heb … geworden” even correct Dutch? It feels so awkward for me to read
No it’s not
It’s not awkward? Because that’s subjective, for me it’s awkward to read.
Or is it not correct? Because yay then, I guess.
Sorry for the ambiguity, I meant it’s grammatically not correct.
Okay great haha
Yep and this construct is still pretty normal in German, we would say for example “ich bin gegangen” (I am gone) versus “Ich hab gesagt“ (I have said). Honestly I don’t think could explain exactly why some words take an “I am” construct but motion is as good a theory as any.