Jump to content

champatsch

Members
  • Content Count

    537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

540 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. 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.
  2. 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
  3. I think saying the "vast majority" of the text is from the Early Modern Period is significantly overselling the case. So, let's go over overselling the early modern position, talking about the syntax. We don't determine the character of the English-language text by higher level, content-rich language, but by lower level, content-poor syntax (see my ngram paper) — what would've been non-conscious production by JS, for the most part. I study the language comparatively: for example, the tense system and the clausal connectors are non(pseudo)biblical and early modern in nature.
  4. Skousen's got a good write up on this in ATV under 1n0820 (7 pages), freely available at Interpreter or Book of Mormon Central.
  5. In another thread where we had veered off topic, we were going over some more part phraseology. @Benjamin McGuire provided us with examples from the second half of the 19c here. He gave examples from 1856, 1867, and 1875, as well as a reference to the archaic phrase in a 1914 grammar by Poutsma. (I don't think we want to say that the OED missed 19c examples, they just picked one of many as a quote.) Balancing Poutsma, we have Rider in a 1759 dictionary saying "the more part(s)" was obsolete. So what's going on here? From quite a few scans I've done over the past several years, it looks li
  6. The following were put forward, a while back, in order to show that "had (been) spake" was routine 19c language. Now that I've had time to go over them, it turns out that the examples were all non-examples. "Had spake" does occasionally occur in the early 19c, but it was very uncommon or rare, and "been spake" is quite rare, virtually nonexistent in the early 19c textual record (verified examples anyone?). The orig. text has 12 instances of "had spake" and one of "had been spake". Only one book is currently known with more of this language, published in 1646. Here's a summary of the
  7. It's good you mention it. (I'll edit the above to reflect that.) I saw the "(that)" but didn't check the footnote. That is an important and telling syntactic marker in the text. We can see that it's the fourth most common word in the text; in most texts it isn't. This is an indication that JS wasn't wording the text, in a pervasive way, since the level of that usage is extremely high, attributable to syntax like this, and perhaps more importantly to the heavy finite clausal complementation after a variety of verbs, especially cause, command, desire, and suffer. Also due to the original subordi
  8. The article quotes from our current scriptures, not the critical text, which is problematic. There's a that missing in the crucial phrase; it would be good to mention it more prominently (Uchtdorf is quoted as employing a that). When I look at the 25k texts of EEBO Phase 1, I find that most quotations have that and it is later ones that don't (1690–; searching for "after all (that) <subj.pron.> can do", using spelling variants). Also, when the article quotes the title page, the early modern language of a famous sentence is not given, so we don't see language that has echoes in known usag
  9. I read through the article, which is technically a fine piece. On page 2, salvation and exaltation are used interchangeably. At church, don't we learn to distinguish between salvific grace (the reading of 2n2523 the article focuses on, which is unproblematic) and works having a bearing on degrees of exaltation, no matter what lack of nuance recent prophets have given?
  10. Nothing has been said about when it was composed. The array of syntax is dispositive on the issue of what the text is like; we don't decide the textual character by phrases that have simple, persistent syntax. The reason that's accurate is because of the (morpho)syntax, which is early modern to a high degree. Have you comparatively studied this aspect of the text? Most words and phrases could have been composed by early and late authors. Quite a few of them, however, required early modern knowledge; only a few required late modern knowledge alone. A large amount of syntax requi
  11. At the end you seem to imply that the Book of Mormon can be explained as a pseudobiblical effort by JS. I have a corpus of 25 pseudobiblical writings, and a comparison of the Book of Mormon with those shows that the text cannot be explained as a pseudobiblical effort. The Book of Mormon is far more archaic and less biblical in its archaism than pseudobiblical texts. Though conceivable that "but if" = 'unless' could be in a pseudobiblical text, I don't find it in these 25. Also, "but if" probably first enters Johnson's dictionary in the 1818 edition, edited and augmented by Todd, who was an exp
  12. I looked over several examples of "after all (that) <subj.pron.> can do" in the early modern period (EEBO; they begin in 1635 in Phase 1 of the database). (The Book of Mormon reading originally had a that, deleted in 1837, but not marked in P.) I also looked at six distinct 18th-century (late modern) examples of "after all that we can do" (ECCO). Most of them, whether early or late modern, seem to employ after with a meaning of temporal sequence and logical opposition — in other words, after conveys a sense of 'subsequent to and nothwithstanding (in spite of)'. The OED's first example (s
  13. I don't dispute that the Book of Mormon quotes from the King James Bible, in 36 long segments and in a lot of shorter snippets. Some LDS muddy the waters, however, by not calling Matthew 7 a quote, for example, even though there are only three very minor differences between 3 Nephi 14 and Matthew 7. Skousen and I don't do that. We call a quote a quote. But we try to be clear that the textual evidence indicates that JS wasn't the one who composed the text using a Bible. Had he done that, the manuscripts and the original text would be different.
  14. Am I missing something? Isn't Adam Clarke an issue wrt the JST, not the Book of Mormon?
×
×
  • Create New...