Have always wondered about this. This is such an enormously famous quote although the exact choice of words has always perplexed me. Initially figured it is an artifact of translation, but then, wouldn’t you translate it into the new language in a way that is grammatical? Or maybe there is some intention behind this weird phrasing that is just lost on me? I’m not a linguist so eli5
In: 1806
It’s is technically correct, just very archaic.
Of course, Robert Oppenheimer said that in 1944, but he was quoting the [Bhagavad Gita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita) which is many centuries older, so he (or the translator of whatever English edition he was quoting) chose to translate it into archaic English.
It’s is technically correct, just very archaic.
Of course, Robert Oppenheimer said that in 1944, but he was quoting the [Bhagavad Gita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita) which is many centuries older, so he (or the translator of whatever English edition he was quoting) chose to translate it into archaic English.
It’s not ungrammatical; it’s merely archaic.
The phrase “am become” as well as “are become” and “is become”—all occur in the King James bible:
Genesis 3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man **is become** as one of us, to know good and evil….
Genesis 24:35: And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly; and he **is become** great….
Exodus 15:2: The Lord is my strength and song, and he **is become** my salvation….
Exodus 15:6: Thy right hand, O Lord, **is become** glorious in power….
Exodus 32:1: …we wot not what **is become** of him.
Psalm 69:8: I **am become** a stranger unto my brethren….
Psalm 79:4: We **are become** a reproach to our neighbours….
Psalm 118:14: The Lord is my strength and song, and **is become** my salvation.
Psalm 118:22: The stone which the builders refused **is become** the head stone of the corner.
Matthew 21:42: Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same **is become** the head of the corner….
1 Corinthians 13:1: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I **am become** as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
[I’ll bet it occurs in Shakespeare also, but I don’t have an easy way to search all of Shakespeare’s works.]
It’s not ungrammatical; it’s merely archaic.
The phrase “am become” as well as “are become” and “is become”—all occur in the King James bible:
Genesis 3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man **is become** as one of us, to know good and evil….
Genesis 24:35: And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly; and he **is become** great….
Exodus 15:2: The Lord is my strength and song, and he **is become** my salvation….
Exodus 15:6: Thy right hand, O Lord, **is become** glorious in power….
Exodus 32:1: …we wot not what **is become** of him.
Psalm 69:8: I **am become** a stranger unto my brethren….
Psalm 79:4: We **are become** a reproach to our neighbours….
Psalm 118:14: The Lord is my strength and song, and **is become** my salvation.
Psalm 118:22: The stone which the builders refused **is become** the head stone of the corner.
Matthew 21:42: Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same **is become** the head of the corner….
1 Corinthians 13:1: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I **am become** as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
[I’ll bet it occurs in Shakespeare also, but I don’t have an easy way to search all of Shakespeare’s works.]
It’s not ungrammatical; it’s merely archaic.
The phrase “am become” as well as “are become” and “is become”—all occur in the King James bible:
Genesis 3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man **is become** as one of us, to know good and evil….
Genesis 24:35: And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly; and he **is become** great….
Exodus 15:2: The Lord is my strength and song, and he **is become** my salvation….
Exodus 15:6: Thy right hand, O Lord, **is become** glorious in power….
Exodus 32:1: …we wot not what **is become** of him.
Psalm 69:8: I **am become** a stranger unto my brethren….
Psalm 79:4: We **are become** a reproach to our neighbours….
Psalm 118:14: The Lord is my strength and song, and **is become** my salvation.
Psalm 118:22: The stone which the builders refused **is become** the head stone of the corner.
Matthew 21:42: Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same **is become** the head of the corner….
1 Corinthians 13:1: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I **am become** as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
[I’ll bet it occurs in Shakespeare also, but I don’t have an easy way to search all of Shakespeare’s works.]
As others have said, [it is an archaic construction of the present tense from Early Modern English](https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/03/now-i-am-become-death.html), as Oppenheimer was ~~likely quoting the 1785 translation of Bhagavad Gita. (Even though 1785 was well into the Modern English period,~~ it was still fashionable to use older-style constructions in literature, just as it is today.) Oppenheimer apparently knew the original Sanskrit, and that’s how he “originally” quoted it during the atomic test, only saying the “official” translated version in the media afterwards. [Source: [TOI 2014-06-10](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/satyam-bruyat/bhagavad-gita-and-the-first-atomic-explosion/)]
[*Edit: Wilkins’s 1785 translation reads “I am Time, the destroyer of mankind, matured”; the [1855 Cockburn translation](https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.10209/page/79/mode/2up) reads “I am Death, that causes the destruction of mankind, (already) mature.”; [Davies 1882 and later](https://archive.org/details/hinduphilosophyb00daviuoft/page/124/mode/2up) reads “Lo, I am old and world-destroying Time”; [Telang 1882](https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10154419998761675.pdf) reads “I am death, the destroyer of the worlds, fully developed”; [Besant & Das 1906](http://www.vivekananda.net/PDFBooks/bhagavadgitawith00londiala.pdf) reads “Time am I, laying desolate the world”; [Arnold 1885](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2388)’s poetic interpretation (and apparently one of Gandhi’s inspirations) reads “Thou seest Me as Time who kills, // Time who brings all to doom, // The Slayer Time, Ancient of Days, come hither to consume;”. Thanks to u/Tuva_Tourist below for alerting me to this. I’m looking more into the [history of translations of the BG](https://beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/the-early-history-of-translation-of-the-bhagavad-gita-1785-1945.html) to try to find who Oppenheimer was actually reading, but it may be that Oppenheimer’s archaic wording was entirely his own translation.*]
I was curious, however, what the actual Sanskrit text was, and whether this translation was faithful, or if it was even trying to convey one of the [many unusual Sanskrit tenses and moods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_verbs) that are absent in English. The [full line from the text](https://bhagavadgita.io/chapter/11/verse/32/) is
>कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत्प्रवृद्धो [kālo ’smi loka-kṣhaya-kṛit pravṛiddho]
Where “asmi” is “I am” — the boring old first person present indicative, nothing more. Now there are [lots of alternate translations to “death” and “destroyer” according to some randos on the internet](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-original-meaning-of-the-quote-from-the-Bhagavad-Gita-Now-I-am-become-Death-the-destroyer-of-worlds), but overall the translation would be accurate, even if it adds an archaic flourish even for its time. [The final link is for casual reference only; I do not endorse that site’s reliability and I recommend avoiding its use as much as possible and never contributing content to it.]
As others have said, [it is an archaic construction of the present tense from Early Modern English](https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/03/now-i-am-become-death.html), as Oppenheimer was ~~likely quoting the 1785 translation of Bhagavad Gita. (Even though 1785 was well into the Modern English period,~~ it was still fashionable to use older-style constructions in literature, just as it is today.) Oppenheimer apparently knew the original Sanskrit, and that’s how he “originally” quoted it during the atomic test, only saying the “official” translated version in the media afterwards. [Source: [TOI 2014-06-10](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/satyam-bruyat/bhagavad-gita-and-the-first-atomic-explosion/)]
[*Edit: Wilkins’s 1785 translation reads “I am Time, the destroyer of mankind, matured”; the [1855 Cockburn translation](https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.10209/page/79/mode/2up) reads “I am Death, that causes the destruction of mankind, (already) mature.”; [Davies 1882 and later](https://archive.org/details/hinduphilosophyb00daviuoft/page/124/mode/2up) reads “Lo, I am old and world-destroying Time”; [Telang 1882](https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10154419998761675.pdf) reads “I am death, the destroyer of the worlds, fully developed”; [Besant & Das 1906](http://www.vivekananda.net/PDFBooks/bhagavadgitawith00londiala.pdf) reads “Time am I, laying desolate the world”; [Arnold 1885](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2388)’s poetic interpretation (and apparently one of Gandhi’s inspirations) reads “Thou seest Me as Time who kills, // Time who brings all to doom, // The Slayer Time, Ancient of Days, come hither to consume;”. Thanks to u/Tuva_Tourist below for alerting me to this. I’m looking more into the [history of translations of the BG](https://beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/the-early-history-of-translation-of-the-bhagavad-gita-1785-1945.html) to try to find who Oppenheimer was actually reading, but it may be that Oppenheimer’s archaic wording was entirely his own translation.*]
I was curious, however, what the actual Sanskrit text was, and whether this translation was faithful, or if it was even trying to convey one of the [many unusual Sanskrit tenses and moods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_verbs) that are absent in English. The [full line from the text](https://bhagavadgita.io/chapter/11/verse/32/) is
>कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत्प्रवृद्धो [kālo ’smi loka-kṣhaya-kṛit pravṛiddho]
Where “asmi” is “I am” — the boring old first person present indicative, nothing more. Now there are [lots of alternate translations to “death” and “destroyer” according to some randos on the internet](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-original-meaning-of-the-quote-from-the-Bhagavad-Gita-Now-I-am-become-Death-the-destroyer-of-worlds), but overall the translation would be accurate, even if it adds an archaic flourish even for its time. [The final link is for casual reference only; I do not endorse that site’s reliability and I recommend avoiding its use as much as possible and never contributing content to it.]
As others have said, [it is an archaic construction of the present tense from Early Modern English](https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/03/now-i-am-become-death.html), as Oppenheimer was ~~likely quoting the 1785 translation of Bhagavad Gita. (Even though 1785 was well into the Modern English period,~~ it was still fashionable to use older-style constructions in literature, just as it is today.) Oppenheimer apparently knew the original Sanskrit, and that’s how he “originally” quoted it during the atomic test, only saying the “official” translated version in the media afterwards. [Source: [TOI 2014-06-10](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/satyam-bruyat/bhagavad-gita-and-the-first-atomic-explosion/)]
[*Edit: Wilkins’s 1785 translation reads “I am Time, the destroyer of mankind, matured”; the [1855 Cockburn translation](https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.10209/page/79/mode/2up) reads “I am Death, that causes the destruction of mankind, (already) mature.”; [Davies 1882 and later](https://archive.org/details/hinduphilosophyb00daviuoft/page/124/mode/2up) reads “Lo, I am old and world-destroying Time”; [Telang 1882](https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10154419998761675.pdf) reads “I am death, the destroyer of the worlds, fully developed”; [Besant & Das 1906](http://www.vivekananda.net/PDFBooks/bhagavadgitawith00londiala.pdf) reads “Time am I, laying desolate the world”; [Arnold 1885](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2388)’s poetic interpretation (and apparently one of Gandhi’s inspirations) reads “Thou seest Me as Time who kills, // Time who brings all to doom, // The Slayer Time, Ancient of Days, come hither to consume;”. Thanks to u/Tuva_Tourist below for alerting me to this. I’m looking more into the [history of translations of the BG](https://beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/the-early-history-of-translation-of-the-bhagavad-gita-1785-1945.html) to try to find who Oppenheimer was actually reading, but it may be that Oppenheimer’s archaic wording was entirely his own translation.*]
I was curious, however, what the actual Sanskrit text was, and whether this translation was faithful, or if it was even trying to convey one of the [many unusual Sanskrit tenses and moods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_verbs) that are absent in English. The [full line from the text](https://bhagavadgita.io/chapter/11/verse/32/) is
>कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत्प्रवृद्धो [kālo ’smi loka-kṣhaya-kṛit pravṛiddho]
Where “asmi” is “I am” — the boring old first person present indicative, nothing more. Now there are [lots of alternate translations to “death” and “destroyer” according to some randos on the internet](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-original-meaning-of-the-quote-from-the-Bhagavad-Gita-Now-I-am-become-Death-the-destroyer-of-worlds), but overall the translation would be accurate, even if it adds an archaic flourish even for its time. [The final link is for casual reference only; I do not endorse that site’s reliability and I recommend avoiding its use as much as possible and never contributing content to it.]
i read somewhere that time and death can be used as interchangeable words and a closer translation is now i am become time which isnt as badass but its more in line with what whats-his-arms was trying to show the prince that all things are that are going to happen will happen because God is all things and all things are in God, so kill your cousin bro lmao
Also, it is a translation from the Sanskrit Baghave Gita so there may be some translation issues.
Latest Answers