Sheum: A New Lead.

[Olavarria]

Zeniff describes the agriculture of his people by saying:"And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of aseeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land"(Mosiah 9:9). What is sheum?

I don't know, but we do have a lead from Hebrew. I propose that the word "sheum" is Hebrew in origin; because in Numbers 11:5, shoom(שּׁוּמִ) is garlic.

[JAHS]

In a FARMS article Matthew Roper explains that sheum "is a perfectly good Akkadian cereal name . . . dating to the third millennium B.C., which in ancient Assyria referred to wheat, but in other regions of the Near East could be applied to other grains" (FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1997, p. 120). He notes that this word was not known to scholars until at least 1857, long after the book of Mormon had been published.

[boblloyd91]

This really is an interesting evidence. While we are on the subject, I have wondered about this in regards to how much the Akkadian language was used by middle eastern peoples around the time Lehi left Jerusalem, and what words would have been used in a day to day conversation. Does anyone here on the board have a knowledge of the history of the Akkadian language?

[thesometimesaint]

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

[Olavarria]

In a FARMS article Matthew Roper explains that sheum "is a perfectly good Akkadian cereal name . . . dating to the third millennium B.C., which in ancient Assyria referred to wheat, but in other regions of the Near East could be applied to other grains" (FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1997, p. 120). He notes that this word was not known to scholars until at least 1857, long after the book of Mormon had been published.

It certainly is a possibility. I'm not against Akkadian sheum, I just prefer Hebrew shoom for the following reasons.

Besides, what language did the original Jaredite settlers speak? How do we know it was Akkadian?

[Log]

Besides, what language did the original Jaredite settlers speak? How do we know it was Akkadian?

A better question is why would you expect the Jaredites to be speaking Hebrew?

[Olavarria]

A better question is why would you expect the Jaredites to be speaking Hebrew?

I don't, that's why I don't touch Jaredite names.

[Log]

I don't, that's why I don't touch Jaredite names.

Then it is unclear why you are trying to link sheum with shoom; the spellings aren't close, and there aren't (to my knowledge) other transliterated Hebrew nouns in the BoM. Since mushroom was (presumably) known to Joseph, he (presumably) would have put mushroom instead of sheum if shoom was the word in the text, no?

Edited November 14, 2011 by Log

[Olavarria]

Then it is unclear why you are trying to link sheum with shoom; the spellings aren't close, and there aren't (to my knowledge) other transliterated Hebrew nouns in the BoM. Since mushroom was (presumably) known to Joseph, he (presumably) would have put mushroom instead of sheum if shoom was the word in the text, no?

Sheum isn't a Jaredite word; it was used by Zeniff, a Nephite. Read here for my methodology.

[cdowis]

Sheum isn't a Jaredite word; it was used by Zeniff, a Nephite. Read here for my methodology.

I find it interesting that you can speak with absolute certainty. It must be comforting to *know* that you are right.

PS. We have often discussed the "others" who were likely Jaredites, as well as other races. It is very possible they taught the Nephites to grow a food crop they called sheum. The Nephites gave it the same name.

But, of course, I could be wrong. It MUST be a hebrew word, nicht wahr.

Edited November 15, 2011 by cdowis

[Olavarria]

I find it interesting that you can speak with absolute certainty. It must be comforting to *know* that you are right.

PS. We have often discussed the "others" who were likely Jaredites, as well as other races. It is very possible they taught the Nephites to grow a food crop they called sheum. The Nephites gave it the same name.

It's all very possible.

But, of course, I could be wrong. It MUST be a hebrew word, nicht wahr.

If you have a better method, please share. And I don't mean that in a jerky/sarcastic way.

For me, the methodology is 10 times for important than the conclusions.

Like I said in my methodology(manifesto), we have no way of being 100% certain on these issues.

[Log]

Sheum isn't a Jaredite word; it was used by Zeniff, a Nephite. Read here for my methodology.

Do you claim, and are you therefore prepared to defend the position, that Zeniff was untouched by Jaredite linguistic influence? And I would appreciate a compelling explanation why Joseph would have transliterated the Hebrew shoom as the Akkadian sheum in the proper agricultural context rather than simply using the English mushroom. I would also appreciate a compelling explanation as to why the Hebrew shoom is the sole transliterated Hebrew word (to my knowledge) in the BoM. I would also appreciate any background you have as to 6th century BC mushroom cultivation in Israel.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Log

[Olavarria]

Do you claim, and are you therefore prepared to defend the position, that Zeniff was untouched by Jaredite linguistic influence?

No, I do not claim that. Question is, what language did the Jaredites speak? Akkadian? Some form of Mixe-Zoquean? From the looks of the names, it doesn't seem Semitic. It's an open ended question for me.

And I would appreciate a compelling explanation why Joseph would have transliterated the Hebrew shoom as the Akkadian sheum in the proper agricultural context rather than simply using the English mushroom.

First of all, were is all this mushroom talk coming from? When did I say anything about mushrooms?

What we are faced with is two possibilities, sheum as 1)Akkadian sheum or 2) a derivative of Hebrew shoom.

1) If sheum is Akkadian sheum, then that means Akkadian, or at least partially Akkadian speaking Jaredites, came to the New World at around 2200BC flourished until about 400bc(+/- 200). This word, and maybe others like it, stayed in a frozen form, unchanged for about 2,000 years despite being isolated from other Akkadian speakers, moving through Jaredite, Mulekite and then Nephite lexicons, 3 languages(!),(remember, Zarahemla and Mosiah spoke two mutually unintelligible languages) and did not change in it's morphology, at all.

This is unlikely, because it doesn't happen often in the real world. Aztec xocolatl, becomes Spanish chocolate(cho-co-la-te) and then English chocolate(chalk-let), and that's only 500 years. Check out the Oxford English Dictionary and see how much English has changed in the last 1000 years; ever wonder why "know" and "knight" have a "k" in front of them? Lets not forget that 2,000 years ago French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian were not 4 different languages but LATIN.

2)If sheum comes from shoom(garlic), that means Hebrew speakers from 600bc brought the word with them and applied it to a similar crop, the way English settlers applied the word "corn" to maize. The vowels changed because that's what happens to languages when they are isolated from their source, they change.

The Akkadian etymology, while very sexy, requires the morphology of the word to endure 2K years of transmission, via three languages, at least two languages, without any change.

I would also appreciate a compelling explanation as to why the Hebrew shoom is the sole transliterated Hebrew word (to my knowledge) in the BoM.

For the same reasons you claim it is the only transliterated Akkadian word, it represented a crop not in Joseph vocabulary.

Btw, transliterated Hebrew words abound in the Book of Mormon: Jacob, Joseph, Jerusalem etc. That's not how you say those words in Hebrew.

But again, I don't think sheum is Joseph's transliteration, but an example of how the Nephite Hebrew had changed.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[Log]

1) If sheum is Akkadian sheum, then that means Akkadian, or at least partially Akkadian speaking Jaredites, came to the New World at around 2200BC flourished until about 400bc(+/- 200). This word, and maybe others like it, stayed in a frozen form, unchanged for about 2,000 years despite being isolated from other Akkadian speakers, moving through Jaredite, Mulekite and then Nephite lexicons, 3 languages(!),(remember, Zarahemla and Mosiah spoke two mutually unintelligible languages) and did not change in it's morphology, at all.

The most likely explanation, to me, is linguistic mixing with the natives, who certainly were of Jaredite extraction in part. The transmission from Jaredites to Nephites could well have been direct. Are you prepared to say no English word, or no other language has words which have been fixed for 2000 years? In light of Brian Stubb's work on Uto-Aztecan vocabulary and its (demonstrable) Egyptian/Semitic roots, I find it believable that some have.

[Garlic] represented a crop not in Joseph vocabulary.

Garlic was unknown by name to Joseph?

Btw, transliterated Hebrew words abound in the Book of Mormon: Jacob, Joseph, Jerusalem etc.

Which is why I specified "Hebrew noun," as opposed to "Hebrew names," etc.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Log

[zerinus]

No, I do not claim that. Question is, what language did the Jaredites speak? Akkadian? Some form of Mixe-Zoquean? From the looks of the names, it doesn't seem Semitic. It's an open ended question for me.

According the the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites most likely spoke the Adamic language, because their language was not "confounded".

Ether 1:

34 And the brother of Jared being a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord, Jared, his brother, said unto him: Cry unto the Lord, that he will not confound us that we may not understand our words.

35 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord, and the Lord had compassion upon Jared; therefore he did not confound the language of Jared; and Jared and his brother were not confounded.

36 Then Jared said unto his brother: Cry again unto the Lord, and it may be that he will turn away his anger from them who are our friends, that he confound not their language.

37 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord, and the Lord had compassion upon their friends and their families also, that they were not confounded.

[Olavarria]

The most likely explanation, to me, is linguistic mixing with the natives, who certainly were of Jaredite extraction in part. The transmission from Jaredites to Nephites could well have been direct. Are you prepared to say no English word, or no other language has words which have been fixed for 2000 years? In light of Brian Stubb's work on Uto-Aztecan vocabulary and its (demonstrable) Egyptian/Semitic roots, I find it believable that some have.

I think Stubb's work actually proves the point I was trying to make in my last post about the improbability of finding a 2K+ year old frozen form.

We'll agree to disagree on which is a more probable source for this name.

Garlic was unknown by name to Joseph?

Read what I wrote again; that is not what I said.

Which is why I specified "Hebrew noun," as opposed to "Hebrew names," etc.

Ok.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[LeSellers]

According the the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites most likely spoke the Adamic language, because their language was not "confounded".

While more than merely "possible", the Jaredites may very well not have spoken Adamic, but some other language, new for them.

The fact that their language was not "confounded" is not proof of their retaining their mother tongue. If you and I were suddenly to start speaking Inuit (in Denver or Salt Lake City), while all those around us were speaking a variety of other languages (few, if any, mutually understood) and fighting among themselves because of it, would we notice that we were not longer speaking English if we had also forgotten what "English" was? Our language would not have been confounded because we still understood each other.

Recall, if you will, the reason God confounded the language of Babel: they were in open apostasy, and since God had covenanted with Noah not to flood the earth and destroy the people en masse, He used a different mechanism to break their unity of evil purpose. when people do not understand each other, they mistrust each other. The myriad of linguistic families born that day accomplished His goal, and the tower of which hath been spoken was never complete and Nimrod's power over a united people was broken.

Yet one family and their friends, Jared, his brother and companions, were still able to communicate: their language was not "confounded".

Lehi

Edited November 15, 2011 by LeSellers

[zerinus]

While more than merely "possible", the Jaredites may very well not have spoken Adamic, but some other language, new for them.

The fact that their language was not "confounded" is not proof of their retaining their mother tongue. If you and I were suddenly to start speaking Inuit (in Denver or Salt Lake City), while all those around us were speaking a variety of other languages (few, if any, mutually understood) and fighting among themselves because of it, would we notice that we were not longer speaking English if we had also forgotten what "English" was? Our language would not have been confounded because we still understood each other.

Recall, if you will, the reason God confounded the language of Babel: they were in open apostasy, and since God had covenanted with Noah not to flood the earth and destroy the people en masse, He used a different mechanism to break their unity of evil purpose. when people do not understand each other, they mistrust each other. The myriad of linguistic families born that day accomplished His goal, and the tower of which hath been spoken was never complete and Nimrod's power over a united people was broken.

Yet one family and their friends, Jared, his brother and companions, were still able to communicate: their language was not "confounded".

Lehi

Your reconstruction of the events does not tally with the Book of Mormon story. Jared and his brother, and their friends and relatives whose language was not "confounded" means that they continued to speak the same language that they had been speaking before; not another "confounded language". Furthermore, the account suggests that they began their migration shortly after the "confounding" of the languages had taken place; so the scenario that they might have been "influenced" by other languages doesn't agree with the story or with experience. And lastly, there is no evidence that those whose languages had been confounded stayed and "fought among themselves". On the contrary, the object of the exercise was to disperse them all over the world.

If Jared and his party were not "confounded," that means that they continued to speak the same language as before; and if they emigrated to the Americas shortly thereafter, there is no logical reason to assume that they had been "influenced" by other confounded languages.

[cdowis]

Your reconstruction of the events does not tally with the Book of Mormon story. Jared and his brother, and their friends and relatives whose language was not "confounded" means that they continued to speak the same language that they had been speaking before; not another "confounded language".

FWIW, LeSeller is basically citing Nibley..

Edited November 16, 2011 by cdowis

[LeSellers]

FWIW, LeSeller is basically citing Nibley..

Sorry, when I "cite" Nibely (or anyone else), I'll make the notation so it's clear.

This is my own argument (which others may have reached independently, and even earlier).

Lehi

P.S.: It's "LeSellers", and, as always, I invite you to use my real name, "Lehi". Simpler to type (four letters, rather than nine). LS

Edited November 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Your reconstruction of the events does not tally with the Book of Mormon story. Jared and his brother, and their friends and relatives whose language was not "confounded" means that they continued to speak the same language that they had been speaking before; not another "confounded language".

You assume, with little basis for doing so, that "confound" and "language" each mean exclusively one thing. "Language" may easily (and often does) mean "communication" (as Nephi, for instance, uses it when he says, "... after this manner of language ..."). "Confound" and "confuse" in this instance can be synonyms. If we read it "not confuse their communications", "not confound their language" does not necessarily mean they continued to speak the same Adamic language they had used to that point, but that they transferred, smoothly to a second tongue as a group, with no loss of communication.

Furthermore, the account suggests that they began their migration shortly after the "confounding" of the languages had taken place; so the scenario that they might have been "influenced" by other languages doesn't agree with the story or with experience. And lastly, there is no evidence that those whose languages had been confounded stayed and "fought among themselves". On the contrary, the object of the exercise was to disperse them all over the world.

You imagine that people who could not understand each other would not quarrel and fight when there was no vocal means of resolving their disputes?

The fighting I propose was the immediate mechanism that effected the dispersal.

If Jared and his party were not "confounded," that means that they continued to speak the same language as before; and if they emigrated to the Americas shortly thereafter, there is no logical reason to assume that they had been "influenced" by other confounded languages.

Not necessarily; it does so only if one rejects any poetic or other variation of language. (Oops: yet another meaning for language.)

Besides, where did I say their language was "influenced" by other tongues?

Lehi

[cdowis]

Sorry, when I "cite" Nibely (or anyone else), I'll make the notation so it's clear.

Okey dokey, his book on the BOM and the Jaredites is a classic, and I am surprised at your claim that you have not read it.

I will not make that mistake again. Your ideas are exclusively your own, unless otherwise noted and footnoted.

Edited November 16, 2011 by cdowis

[zerinus]

You assume, with little basis for doing so, that "confound" and "language" each mean exclusively one thing. "Language" may easily (and often does) mean "communication" (as Nephi, for instance, uses it when he says, "... after this manner of language ..."). "Confound" and "confuse" in this instance can be synonyms. If we read it "not confuse their communications", "not confound their language" does not necessarily mean they continued to speak the same Adamic language they had used to that point, but that they transferred, smoothly to a second tongue as a group, with no loss of communication.

You imagine that people who could not understand each other would not quarrel and fight when there was no vocal means of resolving their disputes?

The fighting I propose was the immediate mechanism that effected the dispersal.

Not necessarily; it does so only if one rejects any poetic or other variation of language. (Oops: yet another meaning for language.)

Besides, where did I say their language was "influenced" by other tongues?

Lehi

The problem I see with all of that is that your ideas are based on wild speculation, whereas my original suggestion was based on the most natural and obvious reading of the text.

[LeSellers]

The problem I see with all of that is that your ideas are based on wild speculation, whereas my original suggestion was based on the most natural and obvious reading of the text.

The "most natural and obvious reading of any scripture is suspect, ab initio, because the writers of ancient scripture, particularly, were poets, and because the Lord wants us to wrest the meaning of the passage and liken it unto ourselves. Pick up an LDS hymn book and identify how many of the hymns were written by modern Apostles and prophets. Joseph Smith wrote the 76^th section as a poem. I find it richer, in some ways, than the prose version in the canon. Poetry is the lingua materna of the prophet.

A little girl read a poem to her class. A little boy asked what it meant. She answered his question, and he said, "Why didn't he just say that?" She responded: "Because it wouldn't be a poem if he did."

Apparently I am not alone in seeing this passage in an alternative way: Hugh Nibley, PhD., did, too, if we are to believe Brother Dowis (and I do). I am not so far out in left field as to have exited the ball park.

From the beginning of Genesis (those first two chapters are prime examples) to section 138, it is almost never the case the the "most natural and obvious reading of the text" is the "correct" one.

We westerners are prone to assume (having been taught in gctf-welfare schools to do so) that once the "correct" understanding is reached, we have found all knowledge. 'Tain't so. There is no "one, right answer", especially in scripture and other poetry. Even the classic case of 1+1 = 2, seemingly natural and obvious, is not as simple as it appears. Whole books have been written on the definition of "unity" ("1"), and I, as a host of others here can do, too, can express "unity" in at least a dozen ways. (I am not a mathematician, so I assume that those who are could express it in hundreds of different ways.)

If Brother Nibley and I can find options other than the "most natural and obvious reading of the text", 'tseems that this apparently self-evident reading is not necessarily the only valid interpretation.

Lehi

[zerinus]

The "most natural and obvious reading of any scripture is suspect, ab initio, because the writers of ancient scripture, particularly, were poets, and because the Lord wants us to wrest the meaning of the passage and liken it unto ourselves. Pick up an LDS hymn book and identify how many of the hymns were written by modern Apostles and prophets. Joseph Smith wrote the 76^th section as a poem. I find it richer, in some ways, than the prose version in the canon. Poetry is the lingua materna of the prophet.

A little girl read a poem to her class. A little boy asked what it meant. She answered his question, and he said, "Why didn't he just say that?" She responded: "Because it wouldn't be a poem if he did."

Apparently I am not alone in seeing this passage in an alternative way: Hugh Nibley, PhD., did, too, if we are to believe Brother Dowis (and I do). I am not so far out in left field as to have exited the ball park.

From the beginning of Genesis (those first two chapters are prime examples) to section 138, it is almost never the case the the "most natural and obvious reading of the text" is the "correct" one.

We westerners are prone to assume (having been taught in gctf-welfare schools to do so) that once the "correct" understanding is reached, we have found all knowledge. 'Tain't so. There is no "one, right answer", especially in scripture and other poetry. Even the classic case of 1+1 = 2, seemingly natural and obvious, is not as simple as it appears. Whole books have been written on the definition of "unity" ("1"), and I, as a host of others here can do, too, can express "unity" in at least a dozen ways. (I am not a mathematician, so I assume that those who are could express it in hundreds of different ways.)

If Brother Nibley and I can find options other than the "most natural and obvious reading of the text", 'tseems that this apparently self-evident reading is not necessarily the only valid interpretation.

Lehi

To my way of thinking that is not sufficient grounds for engaging in wild speculation, or to prefer speculation over the plain meaning of the text.