Why is “Now I Am Become Death” phrased so awkwardly in English? - eviltoast

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?

  • elxeno@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can you make “All Your Base Are Belong to Us” correct with some linguistics magic?

    • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Linguistics is mostly descriptive, mind you; it doesn’t “make” things correct, it explains what happens.

      That said, “are belong” wouldn’t work. “Belong” indicates possession, not a change of state, so even under older grammatical rules you’d still need to use “have” with it. And you’d need to use it in the past participle (belonged), not the base form (belong). Note that Oppenheimer’s quote doesn’t have this problem because the past participle of “become” is still “become”.

      And the present perfect wouldn’t even make sense here. CATS is not saying “those bases used to belong to us, and they still do”; it’s more like “those bases used to be yours, but now they’re ours”. You’d need to use the simple present here, “belong” - “now all your bases belong to us”, without an auxiliary, with the “now” highlighting that this wasn’t true in the past but it is in the current time.