（続々）deathは「死神」か？

WikiquoteのBhagavad-Gitaにオッペンハイマーの記述もありました。ちなみにDeathではなくTimeと訳したほうがいいというコメントがあります。



(Wikiquote)
We knew the world would not be the same. Few people laughed, few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.

Robert Oppenheimer, in an interview about the Trinity nuclear explosion, first broadcast as part of the television documentary The Decision to Drop the Bomb (1965), produced by Fred Freed, NBC White Paper; Oppenheimer is quoting from the 1944 Vivekananda-Isherwood translation of the Gita (ch. XI verse 32). The line is spoken to Arjuna by Krishna, who is revered in Hindu traditions as one of the major incarnations of Vishnu; some assert that the passage would be better translated "I am become Time, the destroyer of worlds."

ネットで見つけた解説でも時間と訳しています。こういう韻文誌の影響がオバマ演説にもありそうですね。

『バガヴァッド=ギーター』を読む

アルジュナの迷いは消え、クリシュナを最高神の化身と認めます。最高神の真の姿を見てみたいというアルジュナの願いに答えて、クリシュナは変身します。
もし天空に千の太陽の輝きが同時に発生したら、それはこの偉大なお方の輝きに等しいかもしれない。
その時、アルジュナは、神の中の神の身体において、全世界が一同に会し、また多様に分かれているのを見た。
新約聖書の『ヨハネ黙示録』を思い出すような恐ろしい描写です。1945年７月、米国ニューメキシコ州で、人類最初の核実験に成功した天才物理学者オッペンハイマーは、はじめて原爆の閃光とキノコ雲を見て、この「千の太陽が…」の一節を口にしています。彼は大学時代に、『ギーター』を読んでいたのです。
私は世界を滅亡させる強大な時間である。諸世界を回収するために、ここに活動を開始した。たとえあなたがいなくても、敵軍のすべての戦士たちは生存しないだろう。
それゆえ、立ち上がれ。敵を征服して、繁栄なる王国を享受せよ。彼らはまさに私によって、前もって殺されているのだ。あなたは単なる道具となれ。アルジュナ。

英語学習的にはI am become Deathという表現が気になります。そのような質問をしている人がいました。Early Modern Englishではbe動詞ても現在完了形を作れたようです。

What is the significance of the grammatical error in "now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"?
After witnessing the Trinity atomic bomb test, J. Robert Oppenheimer famously uttered this quote from the Sanskrit text the Bhagavad Gita. However, the construct "I am become" does not follow normal English grammar. Was this a stylistic choice by the translator? A reflection of an intentional strange grammar construct in the original Sanskrit? A mistake on Oppenheimer's part?

Marcus Geduld, Published author, lifelong reader.
It's archaic but not ungrammatical. It's an example of an old style of present-perfect sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre...

According to Wikipedia...
Early Modern English used "to have" and "to be" as the auxiliaries for the present perfect, with a similar distinction to other modern European languages. This usage has practically disappeared from Modern English. Examples of this conjugation can still be found in older texts:

Madam, the Lady Valeria is come to visit you.
-- The Tragedy of Coriolanus by William Shakespeare

Vext the dim sea: I am become a name;
-- Ulysses by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Pillars are fallen at thy feet,
Fanes quiver in the air,
A prostrate city is thy seat,
And thou alone art there.
-- Marius amid the Ruins of Carthage by Lydia Maria Child

I am come in sorrow.
-- Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre...

More examples:

"I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing." - 2 Corinithians 12:11

"I am become a stranger unto my brethren" - Psalm 69:8-9
Written 11 Jan 2012 • View Upvotes