Jump to content

churchistrue

Members
  • Content count

    374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

238 Excellent

About churchistrue

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

650 profile views
  1. Thanks. Where did he respond? I didn't see that.
  2. I think both would probably be important. If the "more prevalent" was significant. For example, If you wrote a few sentences full of slang from very recent times, but each one of these vocabulary and phrase existed previously, just with much less frequency, that would be relevant to consider in determining if that was from 1950 or 2017.
  3. Should BYU Drop its Football Program?

    As an alum and die hard fan for many years, I would have to say, if we keep losing like this, go ahead and take us out of our misery. Without big conference affiliation, the future looks bleak.
  4. I think the reason it could be important is to somehow come up with some sort of probability model to determine what is most likely. What I hear you saying is that you have ruled out the possibility of 19c authorship, so it matters not how improbable any other points are for 16c authorship. I think where stemelbow and I have gone in this thread with this line of questioning is to determine if there are 19c aspects that line up to point making 16c authorship improbable. And how improbable? And how extensive? I don't know if this is the case. I haven't done the study. But if there is extensive and overwhelming evidence of 19c authorship, that could get to a point where it overrides the low probability of a 19c author properly using the 16c grammar such that 19c authorship becomes the more plausible theory. Do you see a possibility of these 19c aspects reaching that level? 19c implausibility: using the 16c grammar and vocabularly correctly 16c implausibility: lots of 19c stuff in it Could the 19c stuff ever get to be so overwhelming, we accept the 16c grammar implausibility?
  5. Why Lead Lehi to the New World?

    I honestly never thought of this. Mind blown.
  6. I hope I don't suddenly have several posts. I'm struggling with the editor. Quick question. "State" or "state of". Have you guys done a deep dive on that? When I did my computer study, I divided what I call S Voice and N Voice. Assume just the first half of large plates Mosiah through Helaman for now, which is where this distinction is trongest. S Voice = first person sermons of King Benjamin, Alma, Abinadi. N Voice = third person narrative, mostly Mormon. There were a lot of differences between the two but "state of" was one of the most remarkable. Very high frequency in S Voice and low or nonexistent in N Voice. "State of" appears to be another one of those phrases that is very heavily late 18c/early 19c. "State of" seems to be deeply integrated into the meaning and purpose of the text and wouldn't be something that could be a later add-on. Thoughts?
  7. Thanks. I don't buy all this. But everything you and Royal say, I find thoroughly fascinating. Thanks for answering.
  8. I think Royal threw out a theory once that it's a 16c translation that was "massaged" or updated for a 19c audience or something like that. But I think he's backed off that a little maybe. I guess my understanding of their theory would be that the example I suggested would be damning to the theory or force a different view. ie maybe a few instances of vocabulary or phrasing could change but not that widespread. But I don't know exactly. That's why I ask.
  9. OK, I get that. My question is, let's say you had 300 phrases like "plan of salvation", reason to rejoice, temporally and spiritually, mortal body, bowels of mercy, lost and fallen state, probationary state, flesh becoming subject. Let's say we have a list of 300 of these. And they all fit the pattern for plan of salvation. My question is would it change your theory or would that be expected with your current theory? I'm not really trying to challenge you here. Just wondering more about your theory and what evidence like that would do.
  10. Interesting. I glanced through this. Too much work going on this morning. Will need to digest more later. Quick question. Let's assume the deeper analysis is done on demands of justice and found that it was very rarely used in 17c and somewhat commonly used in 19c. And then you repeated that analysis for let's say 300 other phrases (see the bottom of that blog post for the list of possible phrases). And let's say the analysis was consistent for each of those 300. Very rare in 17c, very common in 19c. Would that change how you view the text? Or would that fit within your current working theory?
  11. There's virtually no usage of save it be and save it were pre-1830 unless you go back to the EModE period or a handful of works that were quoting from that period. There starts to be hits after 1830, but they are quoting the BOM or D&C. I want to say there's one other usage in Scarlet Letter, but I might be confusing it with another rare BOM phrase.
  12. This post which I wrote previously was cross posted at Wheat and Tares. https://wheatandtares.org/2017/11/08/19th-century-protestant-phrases-in-the-book-of-mormon/ I'm very curious what the EModE'ers think about this portion: Exercise 2: Google N-Gram Historical Trend Viewer Put in your n-gram here. I put in “demands of justice”. It’s interesting to see that this was a phrase that maxed out in terms of popularity in Joseph’s day. That’s not incredibly insightful other than to see that we as a modern audience of the Book of Mormon, may not appreciate how familiar this phrase might have been to those in Joseph’s day. It sounds kind of old to us, and we might naturally equate “old” to “ancient”, but this is a phrase that was Twitter trending, as we’d say today, in the 1810-1840 time period. Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack are doing great research into the Book of Mormon and how it was translated/dictated, and providing some really good insight into the Early Modern English (EModE) in the Book of Mormon. One theory coming from their research, is that the Book of Mormon contains so much EModE grammar and vocabulary, that its translation or creation date is more likely to be in the 1600’s than the 1800’s. Joseph simply could not or would not have used so much EModE. I’m obviously a hack, amateur research hobbyist compared to them, but this is what I see. When I copy/paste these 19th century phrases (from the list below) into this historical trender, over and over it produces results like the above. I understand there are a handful of phrases and grammar clauses that are real head scratchers, in terms of being popular in EModE and dead in Joseph’s day (especially “save it be” and “save it were”–very puzzling!). But on the flip side, you have to account for literally hundreds of phrases in the Book of Mormon that were popular in the early 1800’s that don’t seem to be used in the EModE period.
  13. Probably because everyone was reading the Book of Mormon then.
  14. Yes, but I guess it's a different argument whether it was possible he could have done it vs he must not have done it because he didn't do it in other writings.
  15. If you wanted to write a piece in hick southern talk, or mimic a bad native Asian attempt at English, or ebonics, or snooty British speak, or channel an obnoxious televangelist, you probably could. That doesn't mean you would use it in your journal or every other writing you did.
×