/r/ And Equating Bofm Culture To The Maya

[poulsenll]

There is a great tendency among both LDS and contramos to equate the Maya with the Nephite culture. Perhaps this is the result of the existence of the many ruins that are available from this culture and even Joseph Smith alluded to these ruins as possibly being the remains of the great cities mentioned in the BofM.

Although most of these ruins were built over the top of structures dating back to BofM times, as far as we know, the earlier builders were still Mayans. Recently, I have become interested in the Mayan glyphic language. This written language was still in use at the time of the Spanish conquest and Landa attempted to record the Mayan alphabet. Unfortunately, he was unaware of the sylabic nature of this writing system. It is now known that this system of writing is based on glyphs which represent sylables rather than letters of the alphabet as is modern English and that there can be more than one symbol for a given sylabic phoneme. This makes translation somewhat more difficult but not impossible. My interest was the opposite of translation from Mayan to English but the reverse. My interest was the possibility of translating BofM names into Mayan glyphs and then looking for these names in Mayan texts.

My concept was doomed to failure as I soon found out that there was no glyph for the /r/ sound among the Mayan glyphs and the closest I could come to translate Zarahemla was the name Tzalaemla. Close but no cookie. Examination of the many personal and place names found in the Book of Mormon shows that the /r/ sound is a common feature of these names. Although translation of concepts was not likely to preserve the frequency of the /r/ sound, names should not have need to be translated and would therefore preserve the sound of the name if not the exact spelling.

Even today the Cholan language that equates to the Mayan glyphic language, does not contain any words with the /r/ sound.

Based on Sorenson's geography, the Nephites were located in a different location from that known for the Mayans. This, coupled with the linguistic problem of the /r/ sound, strongly suggests that the Mayan culture was seperate from the Nephite culture and although there may have been contact between the two cultures they did not speak the same language and it is therefore unreasonable to expect to find any traces of Hebrew among the Mayans. We will have to look elsewhere.

Larry P

[charity]

I am probably showing my ignorance of the topic, but I do know there is confusion in languages over the r/l sounds, with individuals who do not have the l phonmeme hearing the r in its place.

True story. A native Korean speaker was trying to teach other native Korean speakers the English word "really."

She: "Say the word rearry.'

They: "Rearry."

She: No. ReaRRy.

Them: Rearry.

She: NO! R-E-A-R-R-Y!

Them: Rearry.

She could hear they weren't saying it, but she had it in her mind, and thought she was when she wasn't.

I know about phoneme sets, and while all infants are born being able to hear all sounds, after a time, if some phonemes are not reinforced they drop out of the phoneme set and the person may not even hear them any more.

Is it possible that the phonemes could have survived when the distinction in written language did not?

One example of that would be the word "women" in English. The o is not adequately represented for its sound in our written language.

[SolarPowered]

Here are a couple tidbits of information that may or may not be useful to the discussion:

1. I understand that the /r/ sound is extremely rare. English is one of the few languages that use it. (Around 1-2% of all languages have the sound, as I recall.)

2. As I understand it, modern Hebrew does not have the /r/ sound. (I've worked with native Israeli ex-pats, and they have a very hard time with the sound.)

I wonder if perhaps the sound rendered with the letter "r" in the BoM was actually some other sound for which "r" was simply the best-available transliteration?

[poulsenll]

Is it possible that the phonemes could have survived when the distinction in written language did not?

Charity

According to the experts here at the Univ of Texas, this is not the case. Although other mesomaerican languages contain the /r/ sound, modern Cholan does not have it.

Brian Stoss an expert in these languages wrote in an email to me

Most Chontal speakers today have no problem with the Spanish /r/,

which as you know is quite different from the American /r/, even

though most Mayan languages don't have an r in native words. On

the other hand Chorti has an /r/ that developed from / l / and they

no longer have an / l / because of it, but rather have an / r / sound

in all cognate words where their neighbors have / l /.

Larry P

[The Dude]

My concept was doomed to failure as I soon found out that there was no glyph for the /r/ sound among the Mayan glyphs and the closest I could come to translate Zarahemla was the name Tzalaemla. Close but no cookie.

Yeah, but Her Amun has put on a lot of weight eating those kind of cookies.

Based on Sorenson's geography, the Nephites were located in a different location from that known for the Mayans. This, coupled with the linguistic problem of the /r/ sound, strongly suggests that the Mayan culture was seperate from the Nephite culture and although there may have been contact between the two cultures they did not speak the same language and it is therefore unreasonable to expect to find any traces of Hebrew among the Mayans. We will have to look elsewhere.

I can live with that.

I respect your high standards, Larry.

[poulsenll]

Here are a couple tidbits of information that may or may not be useful to the discussion:

I wonder if perhaps the sound rendered with the letter "r" in the BoM was actually some other sound for which "r" was simply the best-available transliteration?

I wondered the same thing but on second thought decided that there was no reason why Joseph Smith would have substituted /r/ for such a phoneme, in particular the /l/ since both are common in English. It is possible that the original sound was different from the English /r/. Possibly something similar to the use of the /j/x/ to repesent the /sh/ which does not occur in Spanish.

Larry P

[cdowis]

Good post, so we can conclude that the Mayans did not use Nephite proper names. It appears from the BOM text that the Lamanites originally did not have a writing system, and, after adopting something similar to the Nephite system of writing, probably did not include the /r/ since it did not exist in their language.

Does this make sense ==>> has anyone run across a "real" Lamanite name which included the /r/ sound?

(Note: my assumtion is that the Lamanites, not the Nephites, were closely akin to the Maya. IOW, Mayan writing is from the Lamanites, not the Nephites.)

[poulsenll]

Good post, so we can conclude that the Mayans did not use Nephite proper names. It appears from the BOM text that the Lamanites originally did not have a writing system, and, after adopting something similar to the Nephite system of writing, probably did not include the /r/ since it did not exist in their language.

Does this make sense ==>> has anyone run across a "real" Lamanite name which included the /r/ sound?

(Note: my assumtion is that the Lamanites, not the Nephites, were closely akin to the Maya. IOW, Mayan writing is from the Lamanites, not the Nephites.)

There were obviously some Lamanites who did not have a written language, but I would not go so far as to say that no Lamanites had a written language or that they got their written language from the Nephites. . Both the Olmecs and the Maya were coexistent with Book of Mormon culture and according to Jacob may have been considered Lamanites. Remember Samuel the Lamanite. He was well schooled in the scriptures and whatever location he came from probably kept written records.

I agree with you that the Maya were, if not Lamanites, definitely not Nephites and Mayan writing has no connection with the Nephites.

Larry P

[cdowis]

There were obviously some Lamanites who did not have a written language, but I would not go so far as to say that no Lamanites had a written language or that they got their written language from the Nephites. .

Larry, no insult intended, but my comments are directed to those who have actually read the BOM text. I don't bother to give references.

(hint: you might want to browse the book of Mosiah.)

[Calm]

my comments are directed to those who have actually read the BOM text

???

[Sethbag]

Charles, are you insinuating that Larry Poulsen hasn't read the text of the Book of Mormon? Can you please make that previous post a little clearer?

[poulsenll]

Larry, no insult intended, but my comments are directed to those who have actually read the BOM text. I don't bother to give references.

(hint: you might want to browse the book of Mosiah.)

Mosiah 24:4

4 And he appointed teachers of the brethren of Amulon in every land which was possessed by his people; and thus the language of Nephi began to be taught among all the people of the Lamanites.

Mosiah 9:1

They were taught the language of the Nephites. This does not imply that the Lamanites did not have a language of their own. It says nothing about teaching them a written language.

Larry P