I'm changed!

[Boljon]

As taught in the textbooks, we should use "have" to express the aspect of perfect, so-called "the present perfect tense."

But there seem to be some exceptions. And I've found 2:
1 He is gone.
2 The storm is arisen.

And I've heard in "prison break season 2 ep 18" one sentence like this:
"I'm changed."

Could that be the 3rd example of exception?
Thank you.

 

[panjandrum]

This may or may not help.
In those sentences, gone, arisen and changed are essentially adjectives rather than participles.

 

[Matching Mole]

As Panjandrum says, they are adjective forms of verbs; the past participle in these cases. Rather than directly expressing an action the describe the resultant state following the completion an action (compare "He has died" / "He is dead"). You can see, in some cases, the participle more obviously in the role of an adjective, in sentences like: "I am a changed man".

There is some discussion, including alternative ideas about "I am gone" (i.e. it being an archaic or idiomatic form, along with "I am come") here:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=550921

 

[Boljon]

Thank you for your responses and the link.

The reason why I did not mention the word "past participle" or "adjective forms" is that I was not meaning that.

I was just wondering why only "to have", not "to be" survived in most of cases in the modern English in order to form the perfection or the perfect aspect (including the static result with the word following of which the part of speech is called adjective rather than past participle), compared to many of the languages spoken on the continent which have both, though different roles (namely with different kinds of verbs following) such as the examples known to many people "haben" and "sein" in Germany and "avoir" and "etre" in French.
I was wondering about that before someone told me there are actually some examples of the survived perfection-forming auxiliary verb "be" like the 1 and 2 I wrote.

And in the kind link have I found some more, thank you.

 

[konungursvia]

I do not quite agree with the other native language experts here. I think the original post is correct that we do use "to be" as the auxiliary verb in some cases rather than "to have". It is one of many grammatical tendencies introduced from French. We see it in the Bible all over the place, and there it follows the same rule as the French language: where the verb describes a change of location or state involving self-locomotion (to come, to rise, to be born, etc.) we see the auxiliary verb change. One can make the argument that we're dealing with adjectives but I view it as a weak argument. "Is risen, is come, is born" are heard all the time, but are not used in contexts similar to adjective use. The modern "I am a changed man" is definitely an adjective case, but "Christ is risen" or "is born today in Bethlehem" are definitely past participles, as is the uncommon "He is changed."