Sheum=barley. Akkadian

[Mighty Curelom]

OTOH, it is not a coincidence that LDS apologists have found this pairing across space and time. These kinds of exercises are just a way for LDS apologists spend their rainy afternoons. Over time, as more and more rainy afternoons pass since the death of Joseph Smith, LDS believers are certain to dig up more and more pairings of tenuous logic. This can be counted on.

This is aided by the fact that the available material for potential parallels is vitually limitless. Any dialect of Hebrew--heck, any dialect of any semitic or quasi-semitic language--is fair game. Add to that any dialect of ancient Egyptian or Greek, and add to that any symbol or hieroglyph from any ancient meso-American people. And if that's not enough, words don't even need to be a precise match! Is it any wonder, with 500 pages to work with and a net wide enough to cover 3 continents and 2000 years and God knows how many languages, that these kinds of pseudo-parallels can be found?

[John Williams]

Since the Nephites did not speak Akkadian (as far as we know), we can assume that this is a loan word.

In English, we have loan words from many languages == Latin, Greek, German, Yiddish, etc. So we can have an Akkadian word, and another word from another language, all of them used by the Nephites.

A very simple exercise in linguistics.

I understand that, Charles, but thanks for taking the time to school us poor unlearned BYU grads.

What I was getting at was that the common denominator between "sheum" and "neas" is their use in a supposed Nephite language. Any ideas on where "neas" comes from? Is it likewise a loan word or a Nephite original? Does it occur anywhere else in the context of grain?

[cdowis]

I understand that, Charles, but thanks for taking the time to school us poor unlearned BYU grads.

Sorry, misread your post, and deleted my post.

[John Williams]

Sorry, misread your post, and deleted my post.

No problem, Charles. Just messing with you.

[Sargon]

I too am curious why it would be trumpeted that "she`um" means barley in Akkadian, when barley itself is already identified in the BoM as... barley. And if she`um just stands in for some generic concept of grain, why not just use the word "grain"? Again I'm struck by the difficulty God apparently had in finding appropriate English language words with which to render concepts recorded on the Golden Plates.

I wouldn't suggest that "sheum" is a synonym for "barley" for precisely the same reason that you gave above. I also see no reason to suggest it is a generic term. "Sheum" is mentioned in a line of specific grains. The most likely case, assuming the BoM is ancient, is that "sheum" was a certain type of grain, and that it was not barley, but comparable to barley.

MC:

This is aided by the fact that the available material for potential parallels is vitually limitless. Any dialect of Hebrew--heck, any dialect of any semitic or quasi-semitic language--is fair game. Add to that any dialect of ancient Egyptian or Greek, and add to that any symbol or hieroglyph from any ancient meso-American people. And if that's not enough, words don't even need to be a precise match! Is it any wonder, with 500 pages to work with and a net wide enough to cover 3 continents and 2000 years and God knows how many languages, that these kinds of pseudo-parallels can be found?

I'm not understanding why this is a bad thing at all.

Sargon

[USU78]

Too bad "bling" doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon. That would be really cool. "And it came to pass, that the more part of the people did wax in their inquities, and in their pride, and did wear costly apparel, yea, even fine-twined linen, and silks, and scarlet, and gold, and silver, and all manner of bling."

Silly Sethbag. There's a perfectly good Jewish word for bling.

It's schmuck. I'm uncertain of its etymology.

[John Williams]

Silly Sethbag. There's a perfectly good Jewish word for bling.

It's schmuck. I'm uncertain of its etymology.

I thought vulgarity was not allowed here. I'll have to revise my list of acceptable words.

[Mighty Curelom]

I'm not understanding why this is a bad thing at all.

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I simply means this kind of semantic shenanigans is evidentially worthless. Her Amun might be impressed by these supposed matches, but when you get to choose from a thousand puzzle pieces and match your piece to any puzzle that's ever been made, it's not really very impressive. And even less so when the piece doesn't even need to fit exactly.

[John Larsen]

You have a word with no definition and no etymology or known origin. This word you believe you can tie back to a similar word in another language. That language is not claimed to be in the book and has no germane connection to the story whatsoever, and that is proof for you? I just really don't know how to respond. I'm trying to understand why this would be exciting to someone, but I really can't see it.

[cacheman]

I do not believe the BoM to be true in any historical sense, but I have always been fascinated by the correlation between she'um and barley. I think that it is about as good of evidence as I've seen for an old world connection to the BoM. I understand the objections to what appears to be a strained parallelism, but still, I think that it's a pretty interesting coincidence.

However, when I look at the overall picture, I am compelled to shelve this particular issue for the time being.

cacheman

[maklelan]

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I simply means this kind of semantic shenanigans is evidentially worthless. Her Amun might be impressed by these supposed matches, but when you get to choose from a thousand puzzle pieces and match your piece to any puzzle that's ever been made, it's not really very impressive. And even less so when the piece doesn't even need to fit exactly.

When it's done in mainstream scholarship it's perfectly valid. Why is it invalid here?

[maklelan]

You have a word with no definition and no etymology or known origin.

But the text clearly designates it as a grain of some sort.

This word you believe you can tie back to a similar word in another language.

Well, the transliterations are identical, so it's not just similar.

That language is not claimed to be in the book and has no germane connection to the story whatsoever,

But we can pick out tons of Hebrew words that are borrowed from Akkadian, but when found in any Hebrew text have no germane connection to the text. A text with a borrowing from another language in no way needs to have a connection to that language.

and that is proof for you?

No, it's evidence. How weighty the evidence is is something that everyone will decide for themselves.

I just really don't know how to respond. I'm trying to understand why this would be exciting to someone, but I really can't see it.

I guess you just have to be a linguist to get excited about this kind of stuff.

[Kumenonhi]

[Ron Beron]

It absolutely is an Akkadian word for barley. See Alasdair Livinstone, "The Akkadian Word for Barley: A Note from the Schoolroom," Journal of Semitic Studies 42.1 (1997): 1â??5. The opening paragraph say the following:

See also The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ed. Ignace J. Gelb, et al. (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1992), 17.2.345â??55; and Hildegard Lewy, "On Some Old Assyrian Cereal Names," Journal of the American Oriental Society 76.4 (1956): 201.

Have you run across Jean Bottero's book, "The Oldest Cuisine in the World: Cooking in Mesopotamia"?

[maklelan]

Have you run across Jean Bottero's book, "The Oldest Cuisine in the World: Cooking in Mesopotamia"?

The Oldest Cuisine in the World

I have not, but I did attend a lecture last year about archaeobotany and a preparation for grain in the Near East that involves starting a fire on top of a pile of grain and tossing it into the wind as it's roasting. I also had to know all the different Hebrew words for the crops they grew in ancient Israel, but beyond that I don't get much into ancient foods.

[John Larsen]

I guess you just have to be a linguist to get excited about this kind of stuff.

Well, actually that is what my undergraduate degree was in. Assuming you have linguistic training then you will know that because of the limited number of phonemic possibilities and the number of lexical items, any two language picked at random will have literally 100s of false cognates. When you start to stretch the categories like have been done in this example, it would be almost impossible to not arrive at the conclusion that the terms are related, although falsely.

Look, I've been told that in the BOM "horses" does not mean horses, "steel" does not mean steel, "chariots" does not mean chariots, "North" does not mean North, etc. And now this word appears in a list next to the word barley and has this weird, convoluted relationship to barley in the old world. This is straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

[Olavarria]

Here is a nice little piece I found:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=tra...ipts&id=126

The Lehites may have used the terms translated in the Book of Mormon as barley and wheat to refer to other New World plants or species of grains that resembled barley and wheat. "It is a well-known fact," writes Professor Hildegard Lewy, a specialist in ancient Assyrian and Babylonian (Akkadian) languages, "that the names of plants and particularly of [grains] are applied in various languages and dialects to different species." Lewy notes that this often poses a challenge in interpreting references to cereals in Near Eastern documents. When doing so, "the meaning of these Old Assyrian terms must be inferred from the Old Assyrian texts alone without regard to their signification in sources from Babylonia and other regions adjacent to Assyria."1 Other Assyriologists have observed that the ancient Assyrian term sheum was used at various times to refer to barley, grains generally, and even pine nuts.2

It is worth noting that sheum is also mentioned in the Book of Mormon in an agricultural context (see Mosiah 9:9). It apparently refers to a New World crop cultivated in the land of Nephi that was designated by an Old World term. Use of this term in the Book of Mormon is itself significant, since Akkadian could not be read (and hence the term sheum was not known) until decades after the Book of Mormon was published.

[facie ad faciem]

The Lehites may have used the terms translated in the Book of Mormon as barley and wheat to refer to other New World plants or species of grains that resembled barley and wheat. "It is a well-known fact," writes Professor Hildegard Lewy, a specialist in ancient Assyrian and Babylonian (Akkadian) languages, "that the names of plants and particularly of [grains] are applied in various languages and dialects to different species." Lewy notes that this often poses a challenge in interpreting references to cereals in Near Eastern documents. When doing so, "the meaning of these Old Assyrian terms must be inferred from the Old Assyrian texts alone without regard to their signification in sources from Babylonia and other regions adjacent to Assyria."1 Other Assyriologists have observed that the ancient Assyrian term sheum was used at various times to refer to barley, grains generally, and even pine nuts.2

It is worth noting that sheum is also mentioned in the Book of Mormon in an agricultural context (see Mosiah 9:9). It apparently refers to a New World crop cultivated in the land of Nephi that was designated by an Old World term. Use of this term in the Book of Mormon is itself significant, since Akkadian could not be read (and hence the term sheum was not known) until decades after the Book of Mormon was published.

There are plenty of species of edible grasses and grains known only in the New World prior to contact times. What about maize? It is inconceivable that BM peoples were ignorant of one of the primary Mesoamerican food-crops readily available and widespread by that time. What would they have called it? They would've either borrowed the local term for it, used one from their own language to describe it, or made up a completely new one for it.

Speaking of maize, by what term did the conquering Old World empires call it? Corn--a well-established and very generic term for any kind of grain. How, then, is this case regarding neas and sheum any different?

[maklelan]

Well, actually that is what my undergraduate degree was in. Assuming you have linguistic training then you will know that because of the limited number of phonemic possibilities and the number of lexical items, any two language picked at random will have literally 100s of false cognates.

I'm well aware of orthographic similarities between different languages, but I disagree that anywhere near even 100 cognates can be found between any two random languages.

When you start to stretch the categories like have been done in this example, it would be almost impossible to not arrive at the conclusion that the terms are related, although falsely.

I wouldn't characterize this discussion that way, but I invite anyone who wants to support their assertion that random similarities like this are commonplace to find a word in Akkadian that is spelled the same as an English word that means the same thing. Until that is done the assertions have nothing behind them but a priori guesses.

Look, I've been told that in the BOM "horses" does not mean horses, "steel" does not mean steel, "chariots" does not mean chariots, "North" does not mean North, etc. And now this word appears in a list next to the word barley and has this weird, convoluted relationship to barley in the old world. This is straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

It's not a weird convoluted relationship. Sheum means grain, and it's listed with other grains. I can point to a dozen Hebrew words borrowed from Akkadian that are found in texts that have absolutely no relation to Akkadian. To insist that a borrowing from one language to another can only occur within a context that shows an explicit relationship to the source of the borrowing is silly, in my opinion.

[cdowis]

Hey, Jaybear, are you going to respond?

I do not believe the BoM to be true in any historical sense, but I have always been fascinated by the correlation between she'um and barley. I think that it is about as good of evidence as I've seen for an old world connection to the BoM. I understand the objections to what appears to be a strained parallelism, but still, I think that it's a pretty interesting coincidence.

However, when I look at the overall picture, I am compelled to shelve this particular issue for the time being.

Yeah, it's only a coincidence.

[cdowis]

Look, I've been told that in the BOM "horses" does not mean horses, "steel" does not mean steel, "chariots" does not mean chariots, "North" does not mean North, etc.

This is not universally accepted by apologists. Sorenson is simply exploring possibilities.

So, you would say that sheum in the context of grain is.... just a coincidence, is that correct?

[Chris Smith]

Yeah, it's only a coincidence.

I agree.

[The Dude]

This is not universally accepted by apologists. Sorenson is simply exploring possibilities.

So, you would say that sheum in the context of grain is.... just a coincidence, is that correct?

Sheum as grain is most likely a coincidence.

The pairing of Cumorah/Moroni and Comoros/Moroni is also, likely, a coincidence.

[cdowis]

The pairing of Cumorah/Moroni and Comoros/Moroni is also, likely, a coincidence.

As discussed elsewhere, I do not believe this is a coincidence at all. Madagascar was inhabited by Arabs, and the 1 and 2 Nephi in the BOM is full of Arabic culture, as noted by Nibley.

Nope, no coincidence here. Those names, like the Egyptian names in the BOM, come from the early history of Nephi and Lehi when they left Jerusalem. Somehow they are tied together such that father and son have those names linked together.

It is just a matter of time when we will find the source of these names and perhaps link it to the Arabic culture of Lehi.

[Chris Smith]

As discussed elsewhere, I do not believe this is a coincidence at all. Madagascar was inhabited by Arabs, and the 1 and 2 Nephi in the BOM is full of Arabic culture, as noted by Nibley.

Nope, no coincidence here. Those names, like the Egyptian names in the BOM, come from the early history of Nephi and Lehi when they left Jerusalem. Somehow they are tied together such that father and son have those names linked together.

It is just a matter of time when we will find the source of these names and perhaps link it to the Arabic culture of Lehi.

lol.