Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

556 Excellent

1 Follower

About champatsch

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The text has very few things that are only late modern. The vast majority is early modern in character, since the vast majority of the syntactic usage — which can be tracked accurately or fairly accurately in textual record — was much more prevalent before 1701. All these content-rich phrases that most people focus on occur in a matrix of early modern syntax. Since when did Early Modern English get extended to 1800? Most have it ending in 1670 or 1700. The label Early Modern English is a convenient one for descriptive purposes, used by many. We can call all the language of the Book of Mor
  2. Just wanted to emphasize that Gardner's second statement above is blatantly wrong — he himself made comments after my Interpreter paper comparing some Book of Mormon usage to pseudobiblical and pseudoarchaic usage, on the website, a couple of years ago. (Since then I've expanded my comparative pseudobiblical analyses and quite a few things I've studied since then confirm the initial work covered in the paper.) As for the first statement, the argument is not always that usage is exclusively early modern (although some things haven't yet been found later, and this includes large-scale patterns).
  3. I don't make a case for exclusive Early Modern English, and neither does Royal Skousen. You know that ! It reminds me of when I was asked a question after one of my articles, by someone you know quite well from your work, and he wrote that my position was that the Book of Mormon was (strictly) an early modern text, using that as a false premise to his question. So I checked my abstract and in it I had clearly written mostly Early Modern English. This is a very tiring assertion, and even worse, perhaps. The case that I/we make is that so much of the syntax is early modern that it present
  4. I have a WordCruncher corpus of 25 pseudobiblical texts. Do you have one? I search this frequently. So you're just throwing out bad information here. Thanks for that. Take the Book of Mormon's original subordinate that usage (think "after that he had done this"). There are 8 archaic types in the Book of Mormon and 7 in the King James Bible. There is no "since that S" in the Bible, but the Book of Mormon has one in 1 Nephi 22, and there is one in the forerunner to the King James Bible, the 1568 Bishops' Bible. (The Book of Mormon also has other syntactic usage found in that earlier Bible b
  5. I'm an expert on Book of Mormon "bad grammar". The extra and usage connecting some complex subordinate clauses to main clauses wasn't JS's bad grammar. It isn't known English usage. And 23 instances of object "they which" wouldn't have been how JS would've expressed it. He would've used modern "those who". Personal "which was" meaning 'who were' wasn't JS's bad grammar either. The Book of Mormon's "there was many (pers.) which" (used by 3 early modern authors) and "there was but few (pers.) which" (Hugh Latimer) are bits of uncommon, though attested early modern grammar. These are primarily 1
  6. What's going on here? Underinformed musings about Book of Mormon English? There's so much to say, and a lot has been said before. The character of Book of Mormon English is properly described and determined by a variety of syntactic patterns, mostly involving verb phrases and connectors. Does Bushman — a distant relative (my grandmother was born a Bushman in 1910; her grandfather was a brother to his lineal g-grandfather) — know about these things? No. He knows about content-rich phrases (see my Ngram Viewer paper) which are diagnostically inferior to the Book of Mormon's archaic, extrabi
  7. It's me. It's her. Etc. Objective case in subject complement. Mainstream English. See Quirk et al. 1985, §6.3. Title page: "And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men." Lancelot Andrewes, Sermons: "But, if there be no cause, and so it be in vaine,"
  8. There are different currents to take into account when considering shall and will usage. One is historical usage. Shall was a more common future tense marker in Early Modern English. It was a neutral marker of the future more often than will, which could indicate will or refusal (in the negative). These modal auxiliaries could also convey other nuanced meanings. For example, shall could convey 'is/are appointed to' or 'is/are to'. Will could convey insistence or determination. In addition, will was dominant in biblical language with first person pronouns, and shall with the other pronouns.
  9. The Book of Mormon has sustained archaism in many different syntactic domains, and it has dozens of instances of nonbiblical archaism in its lexical usage. Pseudobiblical texts do not have this sustained archaism. They are far behind the Book of Mormon in terms of archaism. They might look as archaic as the Book of Mormon on the surface, but once they're analyzed comparatively, many substantial differences become apparent. In the personal relative pronoun system, the evidence shows that the Book of Mormon's pattern wasn't JS's own unexceptional modern pattern, which we see in his early wr
  10. It is hard to find any stronger evidence bearing on the Book of Mormon authorship issue than the following. Two very strong indicators that JS did not author the Book of Mormon are the personal relative pronoun pattern and the verb complementation pattern. I invite anyone to find modern texts with these patterns. Wide-ranging comparative studies indicate that no one proposed as an author of the Book of Mormon would have produced these patterns. The past-tense pattern is another pervasive one which, with the support of these two, clearly indicate the early modern nature of the syntax. Ther
  11. Early Doctrine and Covenants revelations were received as the Book of Mormon, so they are under the same conditions. If Gardner is currently using those as evidence for JS translating/authoring the Book of Mormon — and I have no firsthand knowledge that he is — then he wouldn't be proceeding in a rigorous manner. Two very strong indicators that JS did not author the Book of Mormon are the personal relative pronoun pattern and the verb complementation pattern. I invite anyone to find modern texts with these patterns. Wide-ranging comparative studies indicate that no one proposed as an auth
  12. It's at a point where easier ones to track have been determined to be persistent, sometimes against the OED. It's now more difficult to show persistence in about 50 instances. Textual chain of usage for vocabulary that was apparently in obsolescence needs to be established. The OED will need to be shown to be inaccurate in quite a few of these cases, sometimes strikingly inaccurate.
  13. Book of Mormon chiasms have, of course, some Early Modern English in them. For instance, right at the center of Alma 36, heightening the emotion, it originally read Catched might not have been JS's language (maybe someone can look for catched or caught), and non-2sg art usage almost certainly was not. Catched is in the Coverdale Bible, for example, and Milton is known to have used it as well. I don't find it in 25 pseudobiblical texts, nor non-2sg art. Yet we encounter the latter occasionally in the early modern textual record, also heightening the emotional effect.
  14. OK. Does this lexicographical information and a growing interest in the early 19c in earlier works like Malory's suggest the usage was obscure? Not for philologists. And not terribly obscure in the Book of Mormon for nonspecialists, since the meaning can be deduced in context. Does the information we currently have suggest JS was likely to use "but if" to mean 'unless'? No, so the short lexical phrase functions as a perfectly agreeable, less-than-opaque marker pointing away from JS authoring the text. Should we consider it to be anything other than early modern usage? No, there's a lot of supp
  • Create New...