Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by champatsch

  1. Thanks for that list, Bob. On Alma 46:40 • 1830, page 353, lines 40–42 • Alma XXI: "to remove the cause of diseases which was subsequent to man, by the nature of the climate. This one means 'resulting', an earlier northern usage.
  2. Yes, that's the nevertheless reading, which was probably the 1830 reading as well. Who knows, it might be the most likely reading. The clear "but if" reading in mh0319 does make an 'unless' interpretation in Jacob 7 more plausible that it would be otherwise.
  3. Is it possible that even 190 years ago, readers encountered obscure, archaic meaning in the Book of Mormon that they misread? Contributions that might fit the bill are welcome. I'll begin with two lexical possibilities (of many) that might have been misread. Perhaps later I will add some more, as well as some higher frequency items and some syntactic usage that might have been misread in 1830. “therefore he was about to flatter away those people to rise up in rebellion against their brethren // and . . as he was about to do this / behold he was taken . . tried . . and condemned
  4. Davis's point about the Book of Mormon being dictated orally leads us to consider a similar production, Pearl Curran's Sorry Tale (1917). Syntactically speaking, these two lengthy texts (very close in number of original words) are quite different. The Book of Mormon presents as genuinely archaic, the Sorry Tale presents as pseudoarchaic. Because the Book of Mormon appears to be genuinely archaic in a hundred different ways, very often nonbiblically, we can tell that Joseph didn't author it. The syntactic and lexical evidence is stronger evidence than anything Davis considers, and it is in fact
  5. Academic presses will only publish books whose conclusions on Joseph Smith's authorship of the Book of Mormon are either ambivalent or for it.
  6. I recall reading of a high church leader watching a football game on TV on the sabbath. Last night I saw Steve Young commenting on the game with Boomer and Booger. In my current situation in life, I see hardly any way I could refrain from watching some football on Sunday without withdrawing from important family interactions and events.
  7. It was Calm's Ask Us suggestion that did it. They sent me a pdf of the page after one or two days.
  8. From the end of the editorial, dated January 31, 1981:
  9. I remember that around 1980, the church put out an editorial in the Church News with this title, or something like it. It was, of course, about the Super Bowl and the higher importance of Sunday religious observance. Another memory related to this time of year is when someone I was acquainted with, a brilliant fellow who would go on to be a doctor, giving a talk on a Super Bowl Sunday in the 1980s, talked about how we were going to see the biggest and the best perform later that day. He immediately went on to say something to the effect that, yes, we were going to see the biggest and the
  10. Well, you misrepresent the hypothesis. It is not an early modern hypothesis, strictu sensu. The hypothesis is simply that the original dictation language has so much nonbiblical language that is strongly characteristic of Early Modern English usage — both lexical usage and syntactic patterns and syntactic usage, things which are unattested in pseudobiblical writings or barely attested — that Joseph Smith was not the author or 'translator' (your secondary meaning of translator, from revealed ideas). You're imposing a different hypothesis on our work, and from experience, I have no reason to bel
  11. Where do you get that italics changes were, generally speaking, wrong? A small percentage of them are clearly wrong. I disagree with you on this point. When an italicized word is simply left out, very rarely is it clearly wrong. In general, ellipsis is often not wrong – it's often literary or poetic. And replacing, for example, is with shall be isn't wrong. Nor is changing that to which. Take 3 Nephi 13:5. The italics deletion of are is perfectly acceptable, and the immediately preceding non-italics change to the verb do sets up what is arguably a superior reading, for the rest of the passage
  12. KJQ lays it all out, including the textual fact that changes involving italics in the biblical quotes are only one part of a much larger issue of biblical changes. Not even one-fourth of the changes were italics. The exact percentage is only 22.9. In the 36 quote blocks, five-eighths of the italics were unchanged. Furthermore, there are more than 500 non-italics changes. Eidetic imagery doesn't work. JS would have needed a carefully redacted and prepared Bible to produce what is found in the Book of Mormon. And of course there's no evidence that he used a Bible in the dictation, let alone a ma
  13. You suggest that those who take the Book of Mormon to be the product of revealed words do not take JS seriously. Let's consider the matter. If JS received mental impressions as a fundamental part of the Book of Mormon translation, then he wasn't a translator in the usual sense. Under a revelation of ideas, he didn't turn a foreign language into his own native language. He worded the text from received ideas that he didn't even come up with. Translate in AoF 8 is best read as meaning retransmit. That's basically what JS meant when he said he translated the Book of Mormon. This meaning
  14. 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
  15. 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).
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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,"
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  • Create New...