NHM and the trail

[LeSellers]

Vocalisations were not set in stone (pardon the pun).

There was considerable variation even within the same language, let alone when it comes to another.

Beitar, Bithir, Bittir, Bethir, Bettir, Beith-Tar, Beith-Ter, Battir, Beter, Batar, ad nauseum.

Nor are they today.

In my now-lost-to-a-house-fire copy of Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence related that many English-speaking people had complained that he had spelled his own name in three or four difference ways. His response to them was that he wished he had spelled it in a dozen more because his Arab-speaking allies pronounced it differently based on, at least, the following:

• its position in the sentence
  
• the word that preceded it
  
• the word that succeeded it
  
• the speaker's mood
  
• the sex of the speaker
  
• the age of the speaker
  
• the time of day
  

And, he reminded us, that all of these could play at the same time.

To insist that "Nahom" and "Nihim" are not the same word because of the different vowels is, at least to this amateur linguist, to miss one of the major characteristics of Arabic and, indeed, all Semitic languages. It's one of the reasons there were no vowel symbols in the ancient Semitic alephbets. Modern Arabic does not have them even today (except as "points" or dots for beginning readers).

Moreover, in the intervening millennia, the pronunciations of consonant has changed. We see an example in the Bible in the word "shibboleth". One tribe of Israel had altered its pronunciation of the word to "sibboleth", and by this the other were able to tell who was a spy and who was legitimate.

In French, in the XVIII, words ending in /r/ were changed through a fad/argot to end in /z/. There is but one word that retained this alteration: chaise. It was originally chair, but the vocalization has changed permanently.

Today, we call the name of the seventh month "joul-eye", but George Washington called it "you-lee". Brigham Young called "Deseret", "Dayseeret"; we know this because the Deseret Alphabet printing of the Book of Mormon records his (time period's) pronunciation. These two examples are from a mere one or two centuries back. One can only imagine how much pronunciations have changed in three thousand years.

Lehi

[Gervin]

No one ever actually reads the links. Look on the map of the PDF version; a picture is worth a thousand words.

"At the same time that the Bar'an excavation was completed, a French team conducted the first archaeological examination of a huge area of ancient burial tombs at 'Alam, Ruwayk, and Jidran, just 25 miles north of Marib. While there are isolated burial tombs scattered throughout the Nahom region, this vast cemetery covering many square miles and numbering many thousands of tombs is the largest burial area known anywhere in Arabia." Thats about the same distance from Salt Lake to Bluffdale and I'm assuming can be reached in less than a day.

I printed out the links and read them yesterday in order to be better informed before posting. The only map I saw was on the wiki link but if I missed a pdf map please let me know the post # and I'll look at it. Thanks. The Nahom dot on the map on the wiki link is not 25 miles north of Marib (but a town wouldn't be in a cemetery anyway, right?). So, why is the Nahom dot positioned where it is on the wiki map?

The altars are at Marib because they were donated for use at the temple in Marib. The fact that a NHMite would use time and effort would donate aan altar to that place shows that the tribe was living in and around that area at the time. Or, maybe they were in China and Biathar just decided to make the trip.

However you slice it NHM-ites, during Lehi's time, were living near Marib,as they do today. You couldnt say that with certainty in the 1970s.

Is it unreasonable to imagine the Nihmite tribe living far from the temple, or simply paying homage to the gods as they passed through on their trade route? What makes their presence so definitive for that location? It's an honest inquiry. Also, I don't know anything about present-day tribes - much less those in the middle east. How do we know of a NHM-ite (nihmite) tribe in existence today? thanks.

[volgadon]

Nor are they today.

In my now-lost-to-a-house-fire copy of Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence related that many English-speaking people had complained that he had spelled his own name in three or four difference ways. His response to them was that he wished he had spelled it in a dozen more because his Arab-speaking allies pronounced it differently based on, at least, the following:

• its position in the sentence
  
• the word that preceded it
  
• the word that succeeded it
  
• the speaker's mood
  
• the sex of the speaker
  
• the age of the speaker
  
• the time of day
  

And, he reminded us, that all of these could play at the same time.

To insist that "Nahom" and "Nihim" are not the same word because of the different vowels is, at least to this amateur linguist, to miss one of the major characteristics of Arabic and, indeed, all Semitic languages. It's one of the reasons there were no vowel symbols in the ancient Semitic alephbets. Modern Arabic does not have them even today (except as "points" or dots for beginning readers).

Moreover, in the intervening millennia, the pronunciations of consonant has changed. We see an example in the Bible in the word "shibboleth". One tribe of Israel had altered its pronunciation of the word to "sibboleth", and by this the other were able to tell who was a spy and who was legitimate.

In French, in the XVIII, words ending in /r/ were changed through a fad/argot to end in /z/. There is but one word that retained this alteration: chaise. It was originally chair, but the vocalization has changed permanently.

Today, we call the name of the seventh month "joul-eye", but George Washington called it "you-lee". Brigham Young called "Deseret", "Dayseeret"; we know this because the Deseret Alphabet printing of the Book of Mormon records his (time period's) pronunciation. These two examples are from a mere one or two centuries back. One can only imagine how much pronunciations have changed in three thousand years.

Lehi

I love that bit in 7Ps.

I'm reminded of an incident from 8th or 9th century Tiberias, which was famed for its proper Hebrew.

A mother called her kid, who was playing in the courtyard.

"Gad, Gad come home!"

There was no response from the kid, as his mother forgot the dogesh, which would make the a sound more like a short o.

Whether or not he genuinely didn't realise she was calling him, or he hit upon the most brilliant excuse ever.

[mfbukowski]

No one ever actually reads the links. Look on the map of the PDF version; a picture is worth a thousand words.

I have found that it is helpful to post what you want people to read, and then post the link as a reference instead of asking people to decipher your argument from cryptic references. Just a suggestion. A good straightforward argument is worth a thousand links that won't be followed.

[mfbukowski]

Vocalisations were not set in stone (pardon the pun).

There was considerable variation even within the same language, let alone when it comes to another.

Beitar, Bithir, Bittir, Bethir, Bettir, Beith-Tar, Beith-Ter, Battir, Beter, Batar, ad nauseum.

Not to mention regional accents etc. Just look at how in English vowel vocalizations change between Australia, New Zealand, Britain and Missippi. And that is with radio and TV as a standardizing influence.

It is hard to imagine how anyone would NOT understand this point.

[Gervin]

bumped to see of maklelan the paid apologist or thesometimessaint can answer my concerns. i continue to be a nhm=nahom skeptic

[volgadon]

I thought a rank amateur such as myself would have satisifed you. I'm a native speaker of one of those Semitic languages. Oh well, bring on the professionals.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is it unreasonable to imagine the Nihmite tribe living far from the temple, or simply paying homage to the gods as they passed through on their trade route?

This sounds like quite an assumption. Why is it "unreasonable to imagine the Nihmite tribe living far from the temple"?

[mfbukowski]

bumped to see of maklelan the paid apologist or thesometimessaint can answer my concerns. i continue to be a nhm=nahom skeptic

There is a big difference between 1) presenting more than enough evidence to prove you wrong and 2) meeting your emotional need to have your concerns "answered". They have amply done the first. If they have not done the second, I would submit that that is not their responsibility.

[krose]

Not to mention regional accents etc. Just look at how in English vowel vocalizations change between Australia, New Zealand, Britain and Missippi. And that is with radio and TV as a standardizing influence.

Are you suggesting that these regional vowel "changes" happened after the widespread use of radio and television?

[gmormon]

Are you suggesting that these regional vowel "changes" happened after the widespread use of radio and television?

I think he is saying that it happens inspite of the widespread use of radio and television.

[thesometimesaint]

Gervin:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography

[mfbukowski]

Are you suggesting that these regional vowel "changes" happened after the widespread use of radio and television?

Yes of course. There were no regional accents until radio and television invented them.

[mfbukowski]

I think he is saying that it happens inspite of the widespread use of radio and television.

Yes, of course you are right. Actually I am saying that it is surprising that radio and television did not end regional accents, yet.

[Glenn101]

I printed out the links and read them yesterday in order to be better informed before posting. The only map I saw was on the wiki link but if I missed a pdf map please let me know the post # and I'll look at it. Thanks. The Nahom dot on the map on the wiki link is not 25 miles north of Marib (but a town wouldn't be in a cemetery anyway, right?). So, why is the Nahom dot positioned where it is on the wiki map?

Is it unreasonable to imagine the Nihmite tribe living far from the temple, or simply paying homage to the gods as they passed through on their trade route? What makes their presence so definitive for that location? It's an honest inquiry. Also, I don't know anything about present-day tribes - much less those in the middle east. How do we know of a NHM-ite (nihmite) tribe in existence today? thanks.

Let's just look at the facts here?

Ishmael died and was buried "in the place which was called Nahom"

The actual vocalizations are not really important, the root consonants "nhm" are the same for Nehem, Nahom, Nihm, Nahum, etc. and are from what the meaning is derived.

Altars have been found at a temple in near Marib from a man who belonged to a tribe called Nihm.

There has been a huge burial ground found about twenty-five miles north of Marib.

Marib is on the old Frankincense trail.

The area is in the right place and time for Nephi's narrative in the Book of Mormon.

It is the only place know today that could fit that description, i.e. place, time, name.

There is a prophet in the old testament called Nahum. Changing the u to an o is something that even Joseph Smith, as uneducated as he was, could have done easily. But even more likely is the fact that there was a man living in Herkimer County, New York at the time named Nahom Daniels, a perfect bulls-eye. I bet that Uncle Dale can find some evidence that Joseph made fairly regular trips to Herkimer County and must have know Nahom Daniels, at least in passing. This just could noy be coincidence.

The verified facts about Nehem, the Nihm tribe, and the burial ground were just a lucky coincidence.

Glenn

[krose]

Yes of course. There were no regional accents until radio and television invented them.

No need to sneer. Your words ("look at how in English vowel vocalizations change... And that is with radio and TV...") implied that vowels changed even though there was radio and TV. Even if you didn't intend it that way, the inference was justified.

Actually I am saying that it is surprising that radio and television did not end regional accents, yet.

I don't know why you think that is surprising. Significant change in dialect takes generations, of which TV and radio have been in widespread use for only two and three (respectively), and much of their programming has been local. What's more, children emulate their parents, friends and local educators more than mass media.

Still, nationwide communications have already gone a long way towards standardizing accents, just as would be expected. In the US, the majority of people now sound like national newscasters and sit-com actors. Regional accents, while still around, are less extreme and more mutually understandable. The natural process of dialects separating until they become different languages has been reversed.

[thesometimesaint]

krose:

Not really, we are witnessing an homogenization of American English where regionalisms, and local dialects are fast disappearing. When I was in my teens it was easy to tell someone was from southern Alabama vs one from northern Alabama, and a east Texan from a western one. Now there is no recognizable difference.

[krose]

... we are witnessing an homogenization of American English where regionalisms, and local dialects are fast disappearing.

That's what I just said.

[ed2276]

That's what I just said.

It was difficult to understand you with that accent of yours.

[mfbukowski]

Krose

I said:

Actually I am saying that it is surprising that radio and television did not end regional accents, yet.

Then YOU said:

I don't know why you think that is surprising.

THEN you said:

Still, nationwide communications have already gone a long way towards standardizing accents, just as would be expected.

Make up your mind!

That is just what I said!

[krose]

Krose

I said:

Then YOU said:

THEN you said:

Make up your mind!

That is just what I said!

This is silly, but I'll try to simplify it for you. You express surprise that mass media have not made regional accents disappear within a couple of generations. I say the process is happening, but that it takes longer. It's not that difficult to follow.

It's a given that languages change with time and isolation. But I fail to see how that fact provides any special support to the claim that NHM = Nahom instead of something else.

[volgadon]

This is getting tedious.

The vocalisation is not vitally important. What is is the order of the root letters.

It could be Nahom and mean the same thing as Nahum, Nehem, Nihim, or Naham.

[LeSellers]

bumped to see of maklelan the paid apologist or thesometimessaint can answer my concerns. i continue to be a nhm=nahom skeptic

How do you respond to my message?

In my now-lost-to-a-house-fire copy of Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence related that many English-speaking people had complained that he had spelled his own name in three or four difference ways. His response to them was that he wished he had spelled it in a dozen more because his Arab-speaking allies pronounced it differently based on, at least, the following:

• its position in the sentence
  
• the word that preceded it
  
• the word that succeeded it
  
• the speaker's mood
  
• the sex of the speaker
  
• the age of the speaker
  
• the time of day
  

And, he reminded us, that all of these could play at the same time.

To insist that "Nahom" and "Nihim" are not the same word because of the different vowels is, at least to this amateur linguist, to miss one of the major characteristics of Arabic and, indeed, all Semitic languages. It's one of the reasons there were no vowel symbols in the ancient Semitic alephbets. Modern Arabic does not have them even today (except as "points" or dots for beginning readers).

I have added

emphasis

.

Lawrence was no LDS apologist. He may never have had any significant contact with any Saint in his life. But his words support the idea that however Nahom is spelled in the Book of Mormon, it is correct.

The position that since we read "Nahom" in the Book of Mormon, but scholars write "Nehem" or "Nihim" demonstrates, as I stated above, a complete ignorance of the alephbets of Semitic languages. They have no vowel symbols because vowels are notably fluid. They may change with every pronunciation even by the same speaker. They may change in the same sentence by the same speaker.

And that does not even take into account that the Lehites did not speak the same dialect as the Nehomites, so their pronunciation would naturally vary from that of the locals. Moreover, as far as I have been able to tell, the reformed Egyptian characters that Nephite used came from a similarly defective writing system. Egyptian (reformed or no) seems not to have included vowel symbols, either. So, it is only reasonable that Nephi would have recorded the place of his father-in-law's burial in his own dialect, using a language that very likely had no symbols for any vowels whatsoever.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

How do you respond to my message?Lawrence was no LDS apologist. He may never have had any significant contact with any Saint in his life. But his words support the idea that however Nahom is spelled in the Book of Mormon, it is correct.

The position that since we read "Nahom" in the Book of Mormon, but scholars write "Nehem" or "Nihim" demonstrates, as I stated above, a complete ignorance of the alephbets of Semitic languages. They have no vowel symbols because vowels are notably fluid. They may change with every pronunciation even by the same speaker. They may change in the same sentence by the same speaker.

And that does not even take into account that the Lehites did not speak the same dialect as the Nehomites, so their pronunciation would naturally vary from that of the locals. Moreover, as far as I have been able to tell, the reformed Egyptian characters that Nephite used came from a similarly defective writing system. Egyptian (reformed or no) seems not to have included vowel symbols, either. So, it is only reasonable that Nephi would have recorded the place of his father-in-law's burial in his own dialect, using a language that very likely had no symbols for any vowels whatsoever.

Lehi

Precisely. And that is why I was making the rather innoccuous point that vowels shifting in pronunciation occur even today- all the time.

[Gervin]

Jaybear:

Putting aside the BoM. There was a place in what is now Yemen called by an English translation NaHoM, in about 600 BCE. This place was explored by a non LDS researcher Burkhard Vogt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

The place actually exists. You can go there yourself and see the ruins.

As far as any LDS tie in. That is what is speculative, but it does seem reasonable to assume given the narrative in the BoM to be the Nahom talked about by Nephi. Now it MAY not be in fact the one Nephi is talking about but that is what the best evidence presented so far suggests.

What place actually exists? Nahom? NHM? It's not clear from your post or the linked article. The map on the link shows a green dot connoting "Nahom." Why is the green dot where it is?