What is the significance of the phrasing "I am become death," as opposed to "I have become death," or "I am death?" See description:

by BustedBreaks

Sorry if this is the wrong sub.. I'm asking in reference to Robert Oppenheimer's recitation of this Bhagavad Gita quote in a video of him describing what it was like to detonate an atomic bomb. I have always been intrigued by the odd phrasing and was wondering if there was significance to it, or if it was some translation oddity..

Thanks

restricteddata

I have written out a bit of an essay on Oppenheimer and the Gita. The origins of his translation is addressed: it is own translation, as someone who could read Sanskrit, and it seems derived in part from the preferences of his Sanskrit teacher, Arthur Ryder. I don't think there is much significance in Oppenheimer's particular translation, other than the fact that it his own (which he would have appreciated), and that its meaning is generally misunderstood (Oppenheimer is not saying he has become death — he is saying he felt like he was it the presence of a god, of death itself, of the enormity of mortality and responsibility).

thewimsey

Modern English uses "have" plus the past participle to form the present perfect tense. "I have run, eaten, etc.".

Early modern English used to use have+past participle for most verbs, but "to be"+past participle for a small number of verbs. Modern day French and German still do this.

The verbs that took "to be" were usually verbs of motion, broadly speaking, which included "to become". This is still the case in German and French.

You can see examples of this in the King James bible:

"I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children." Psalms 69:8.

A modern translation would be "I have become...".

Likewise, Galatians 4:16 "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Have I...).

Hosea 12:8 "And Ephraim said, Yet I am become rich, I have found me out substance: in all my labours they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin." (Yet I have become...).

There are a lot of other examples. Note that you will still see this formation in some Christmas songs (He is risen; he is come (both for he has)).

You will see this form in Shakespeare as well.

Anyway, so grammatically "I am become" just means "I have become". I'll leave it to others to speculate why he chose the obsolete form for his translation.

Edit: grammaire.

Searocksandtrees

hi! not discouraging more discussion here, but this question has come up a few times, so catch up on the story so far here. All posts include comments on Oppenheimer specifically by resident nuke expert /u/restricteddata

if you have followup questions on locked threads, ask them here & include the user's username so they'll get an auto-notification