English question: I [i]am[/i] become

Factual Questions
1

Using be as auxiliary verb with become in past tense. - Is that proper English?

Not being a native English speaker, I try to pick up idioms as I go. Years back I encountered this construction in Irving Stones book on Pissaro (“Depths of Glory”). I asked some nearby anglophones and was told that it was downright wrong. OK. It surprised me that Mr Stone would make such a silly error, but I didn’t think more of it.

I recently encountered the expression again in Robertson Davies “Rebel Angels”, where it occurs on the second page: " My English was become stiff and formal". In both of these occasions it seemed to imply more of a sudden change brought on by an external influence, than a voluntary transformation, so I thought that there might actually be a different meaning.

However, I asked google, and found not zillions, but thousands of hits for “I am become”. Most of them are paraphrasing Dr Robert Oppenheimer, who apparently quoted the Bhagavad-Gita (chapter 11, verse 32) upon seeing the first nuclear explosion: “I am become death, the destroyer/shatterer of worlds” There was also a film called “I am become death”, supposedly about the making of the bomb.

However in neither of the instances quoted earlier did I detect any hints towards Hinduism, nuclear armaments or any apocalyptic divination.
I would therefore like to ask the teeming millions the following:

[ul]

[li]Is the construction “I am become / it was become” considered Standard English?[/li]
[li]Would it have a slightly different meaning, compared to “I have become (something)”? Would it maybe imply that the change was brought on against my wish?[/li]
[li]Is it considered obsolete/archaic? The translator of Bhagavad-Gita might have opted for an archaic expression, but hardly Stone and Davies. (Both the books cited above are probably from the 70s, or early 80s (aside: Is there any easy way of finding out when a book was first published?), and although the “Depths of Glory” is set in late 19th century, Stone normally didn’t use archaic language)[/li]
[li]Or is it just an error on behalf of the publisher / proofreader? Sounds unlikely, as neither of the copies I’ve read are first editions, and it ought to have been corrected before coming out in paperback.[/li]
[/ul]
Either way, I guess it must at one time have been accepted, at least in very formal circumstances, as the translator of Bhagavad-Gita used it. (I have been trying in to find which translation the quote is taken from, but in vain. It would be interesting to find out when it was published.) Is it even possible that the original translator goofed? In a more modern translation by Ramanand Prasad the same passage is rendered:

I guess it all boils down to the same question:

Would I appear more erudite by adding it to my vocabulary, or would people just sneer at me for not even knowing basic conjugation?

2

The only place I’ve ever heard it is in Oppenheimer’s quote. The usage corresponds to the aorist tense in Greek (it may also exist in the original language of the Bhagavad Gita), in which case it’s just an overly-literal translation, but not completely “wrong”. I wouldn’t add that to my everyday speech, but it is a nice poetic device.

3

It is Standard English, but it’s old-fashioned to the point of being archaic. In other words, no one would actually speak that nowadays, but it can be used to lend an elevated tone to a formal pronouncement. Irving Stone wrote historical novels, so I can see how it would fit in there.

In the Romance languages, the composite past tense is formed with the past participle plus either be or have.

Be is used for intransitive and stative verbs (become is a stative verb). Have is used for transitive verbs. English formerly followed this pattern, but in the past couple centuries or so have has taken over as the only auxiliary used with the past participle.

In earlier English you could even find “He is come” instead of “He has come” and it’s perfectly correct grammar, but archaic. Whoever told you it’s wrong doesn’t know his English grammar.

4

In general use, I believe “I become” or “I am becoming” are considered correct. “I am become” is a phrase I don’t recall hearing in ordinary use.

Example:

*I am becoming very knowledgable due to hanging out at the SDMB.

I become more knowledgable each day.*

If you are not a native English speaker, then I would think it best not to use this particular construction as many would think that you were making a mistake. It reminds me of Homer Simpson:
*
Boy: Papa Simpson, you are very learned
Homer: Heehee, it’s learn’d.
*

5

It’s not wrong, just archaic. It occurs many times in the King James Bible (1611).

6

I’d concur with Jomo Mojo. It’s an archaism - OK in a limited set of circumstances, but no longer standard colloquial English. It’s going to sound high-flown at best and simply wrong at worst.

Robertson Davies - one of my favourite authors - although he died only a few years ago, definitely falls into the “high-flown” category in his use of language. Is this a good place to repeat my favourite Davies quotation? I think it is. From The Papers of Samuel Marchbanks:

“Let my prose be rebarbative and tenebrous; let my pennyworth of thought be muffled in gorgeous habilments; lovers of Basic English shall look to me in vain.”

7

Apologies for my butched up title. (This is my first thread after all.)

Thanks ultrafilter and Jomo Mojo for your swift replies. I’m familiar with the way the French and German (neither of which is my mother tongue, by the way) use either be or have in composite past tense.

While that is more or less true for German, it’s not quite on the mark for French. (They have simply a list of verbs for which to use etre=be, most of them involving motion; while for the rest they use avoir=have)

And thanks also to bibliophage, for the biblical reference. I wonder why google didn’t find it for me…

And cazzle, * I am becoming* is simply the present continuous, which is not what we’re discussing here. (That I’m not native doesn’t mean that I’m a novice!)

Steve: That’s brilliant! I thought I had read most of Davies books, but I’ve never even heard of that one. Robertson Davies was a great author and I actually consider it lucky to have found out about him after his death, as it means that all his books are already available in paperback. No more waiting for years for a book like John Irvings The fourth hand (Which supposedly was not worth the wait. - I haven’t read it yet though.)

8

No offence intended… I suspect your English is better than mine! You, at least, were taught the rules, whereas I was left to pick it up as I went along :slight_smile: I was merely trying to show the use of I am be… compared to I be…

9

Not much to add here apart from mentioning that Old English was a Germanic language, which is where the “I am become” construction comes from, and adding a few more examples…

It also turns up in Tennyson’s Ulysses (1842):

…I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known,-- cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honor’d of them all,–
And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.

OK, I didn’t need to quote that much of it, but I love the poem… :wink:

Oh, and J.R.R. Tolkien uses it, too (and, even more frequently, phrases like they were come). Of course, I can think of no better example of a modern author writing in a deliberately archaic style!

cazzle:
“Her English is too good,” he said. "That clearly indicates that she is foreign.
“Whereas others are instructed in their native language, English people aren’!” :smiley:

10

No offence taken. :slight_smile:
Even though I haven’t studied English for a long time, and never lived in any english-speaking region, I read a lot, and pick it up that way.
My SO is English-born, and it does give me a perverse pleasure to be able to correct her language.

11

…just to add the hymn:

which, as a kid, I always thought sounded weird. Now I know I wasn’t singing incorrect grammar all those years.

12

Ulysses
by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Match’d with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
I cannot rest from travel; I will drink
Life to the lees. All times I have enjoy’d
Greatly, have suffer’d greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when
Thro’ scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vext the dim sea. I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart…

<snip>

13

Hey, I called “Ulysses” first! :wink: