Natasha Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Lehi,You have made this statement before. I'm wondering how you know that Washington pronounced "July" as a German would?Also, your suggestion is that Smith might have called himself "Yoseph Yunior" when speaking?Yumping Yiminey! Yas! Yoseph Yunior was a guuud boy, he was!
volgadon Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 I am going to take a Boris Badinov stab at this one, dahling.The English language is greatly infused with the echo of Latin, in its metaphorical veins. I think it is the Latin that even has "Iesu" and "Jesu" being pronounced the same way: it seems that, originally, the capital "J" was just a capital "I" with a long tail, on it. (And, with no change in pronunciation).But, I would also echo the concern of another poster who didn't quite see how a Hebraic cognate accusative would have fit within a Reformed Egyptian language context.Because Reformed Egyptian is incorrect. There is a script termed reformed, or modified, Egyptian.
volgadon Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Perhaps, if the person were from Lodz, Poland, if would indeed sound like "Hall-lay-lude-Ga" (with the "g" sound of "go"). Good Polish, to me!Really, I was under the impression that they said aleluya in [L]wodzh.
LeSellers Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Okay... now you're talking about certain borrowed words where the original pronunciation was easy to retain. Sometimes we keep it and sometimes we don't.That is exactly what we're discussing. All of the words (Jershon, Jerusalem, Isaiah, Joseph, etc.) in the set we're looking at are "borrowed words". They all came to English from Hebrew by way of Latin. Neither of the other languages has a /j/ sound; Latin used "J" to represent the /y/ of the Hebrew in the initial position for proper nouns and similar words. As English-speakers started applying our own pronunciation of "J" (/j/) to those words, it took some words less time to get assimilated than others (the most common ones, it seems, got dragged into the Anglo fold most rapidly than others, as with "July").Don't forget, we also have "jalape
volgadon Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Except that the Spanish j was pronounced as a w in Joseph Smith's day. How do I know? Juanita and Harry Smith.
krose Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 All of the words (Jershon, Jerusalem, Isaiah, Joseph, etc.) in the set we're looking at are "borrowed words". They all came to English from Hebrew by way of Latin.No, the word that started all this -- Jershon -- did not come to English by way of Latin. That's the problem, and that's what we've been discussing. I see no logical reason for a name with an initial /y/ sound to be spelled with a J by a modern translator, unless that translator -- being aware of the transition history for other names -- consciously chose the J to retain consistency. I don't think that sounds like something Smith would do.
Luigi Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 In Biblical Hebrew, when the object of a verb has the same root word as a verb, this is called the cognate accusative. The cognate accusative appears in English translations of the Hebrew Bible and Book of Mormon. Ex. "I dreamed a dream; judged a rightous judgement" Another interesting name in the Book of Mormon is the toponym: Jershon. What's interesting is that the "y" in Hebrew is often rendered as "j" in English, for example: Yosef and Joseph. Following that convention, Jershon could well be rendered as Yershon.In Hebrew, the verb yarash(ירש) means "possess/inherit". When we keep these Hebrew items in mind, we see a cognate accusative that is only visible in Hebrew, but not in English.Alma 27:2424) And now behold, this will we do unto our brethren, that they may inherit(ירש) the land Jershon;....That's very interesting. I also think it's interesting that in English at times the 'G' is pronounced with a 'J' sound and that the name Gershon appears in the Bible several times.
volgadon Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 No, the word that started all this -- Jershon -- did not come to English by way of Latin. That's the problem, and that's what we've been discussing. I see no logical reason for a name with an initial /y/ sound to be spelled with a J by a modern translator, unless that translator -- being aware of the transition history for other names -- consciously chose the J to retain consistency. I don't think that sounds like something Smith would do.No, but it came by way of Hebrew. You aren't claiming tha hallelujah is a Latin word are you?Joseph wasn't a modern translator.
krose Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Except that the Spanish j was pronounced as a w in Joseph Smith's day. How do I know? Juanita and Harry Smith.In the case of Spanish "JUA-" words (Juan, Juanita, Juarez, etc.) it does come out sounding like a W from most people, now as well as then. But that's just because it's difficult for an English speaker to pronounce [hwa], where the voiced H is followed by [wa]. Rather than the J being pronounced as a W, it is not pronounced at all in these names. A lot of people don't aspirate an H sound for "WH-" words, either. For them, "which" and "witch" sound alike, as do "whether" and "weather."
Mortal Man Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 In Biblical Hebrew, when the object of a verb has the same root word as a verb, this is called the cognate accusative. The cognate accusative appears in English translations of the Hebrew Bible and Book of Mormon. Ex. "I dreamed a dream; judged a rightous judgement"What is the first cognate accusative to appear in the BoM?
krose Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 No, but it came by way of Hebrew.Well, that's the claim by those who believe the BoM was translated from Hebrew (in the shape of Reformed Egyptian). All I'm willing to acknowledge is that it first appears in that book.You aren't claiming tha hallelujah is a Latin word are you?Hebrew via Latin. My dictionary says it comes either "via ecclesiastical Latin alleluia from Greek allēlouia (in the Septuagint), or directly from Hebrew hallĕlūyāh"Joseph wasn't a modern translator.He wasn't a translator at all in any sense that we would use the word, which requires the ability to read and understand both the source language and the target language. If his story is to believed, he would more accurately be called a vessel.
volgadon Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 As your source says OR directly from Hebrew.Reformed Egyptian is not capitalised. Reformed Egyptian means a script and the term appears later on in the BoM.
Olavarria Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 What is the first cognate accusative to appear in the BoM?Im guessing...."dreamed a dream"?That's very interesting. I also think it's interesting that in English at times the 'G' is pronounced with a 'J' sound and that the name Gershon appears in the Bible several times.and?
California Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I made no such claim. It also exists in Arabic and who knows what else. The cognate accusative in and of itself is not the significant thing here. What is significant is that this example of cognate accusative only works in Hebrew. ...Yep, though he tells us that the Hebrew had been altered also. In that case, the Hebrew of the Nephite prophet historians might have been to biblical Hebrew what the English of JK Rowling's Harry Potter is to Chaucer's Cantebury Tales...an altered version of the same language.If you read a book or set of books enough times your familiarity with diction and use of placement of the language would become second nature. I remmember when I was younger I read Victorian era poetry all the time. It got to the point that one day I was reading a random unfinished poem from the same time period and finished it myself, using words, phrases, and a style so similar that I doubt anybody would have been able to tell my ending wasn't by the same author. I did that in 10th grade. By the time Joseph Smith came out with the BOM, he had a good 20 years of listening to the Bible taught in his home, and more than that, when he was busy investigating other churches he would have heard enough preaching to come to his own conclusions about what was right. Also, he had Rigdon with him.I don't think it would be a far stretch to say that whatever similarities we see between the language and Hebraisms Book of Mormon and the Bible are a product of Joseph's subconscious, his familiarity, surfacing withing a similar context.
Olavarria Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 If you read a book or set of books enough times your familiarity with diction and use of placement of the language would become second nature. I remmember when I was younger I read Victorian era poetry all the time. It got to the point that one day I was reading a random unfinished poem from the same time period and finished it myself, using words, phrases, and a style so similar that I doubt anybody would have been able to tell my ending wasn't by the same author. I did that in 10th grade. By the time Joseph Smith came out with the BOM, he had a good 20 years of listening to the Bible taught in his home, and more than that, when he was busy investigating other churches he would have heard enough preaching to come to his own conclusions about what was right. Also, he had Rigdon with him.I don't think it would be a far stretch to say that whatever similarities we see between the language and Hebraisms Book of Mormon and the Bible are a product of Joseph's subconscious, his familiarity, surfacing withing a similar context.And how exactly does this relate to the OP? The cognate accusatives I used only work in Hebrew.
Luigi Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 and?Well if one considers that in English 'G' is often pronounced with a 'J' and Gershon is in the Bible it is obvious where Joseph could have found 'inspiration' for that word. Given the multiple uses of Jershon in the BoM-not to mention the mutiple other word forms that resemble Bible names in the BoM-that you found one that potentially works with your cognate accusative makes for a rather unimpressive 'hit'.
Olavarria Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 Well if one considers that in English 'G' is often pronounced with a 'J' and Gershon is in the Bible it is obvious where Joseph could have found 'inspiration' for that word. Given the multiple uses of Jershon in the BoM-not to mention the mutiple other word forms that resemble Bible names in the BoM-that you found one that potentially works with your cognate accusative makes for a rather unimpressive 'hit'.The appeal to chance.
Mortal Man Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 QUOTE(Mortal Man @ Jul 21 2009, 11:01 AM) What is the first cognate accusative to appear in the BoM?Im guessing...."dreamed a dream"?"...and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands"
Luigi Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 The appeal to chance.An appeal that you would certainly find reasonable if we were discussing Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, or even Muhammed or others who you don't consider prophets.
Olavarria Posted July 24, 2009 Author Posted July 24, 2009 An appeal that you would certainly find reasonable if we were discussing Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, or even Muhammed or others who you don't consider prophets.Not nessesarily my friend. I actually believe Mohammed was one of God's Servants and was raised up by God to eliminate idolatry and scourge Christendom for its idolatry. A prophet? No. Inspired by God? Absolutly. So if perchance Mohammed ever made a prediction that came true, I would have to give him his due. Im not familiar with Damus or Cayce but I am open to the possibility of people being natural born seers and having a gift that may or may not be accurate 100% of the time, even without priesthood or correct doctrinal views. I believe Joseph Smith had such a gift, why not others?
Olavarria Posted July 24, 2009 Author Posted July 24, 2009 "...and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands"it also appears in the KJV. My point in the OP was that this one only works in Hebrew.
Olavarria Posted July 24, 2009 Author Posted July 24, 2009 An appeal that you would certainly find reasonable if we were discussing Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, or even Muhammed or others who you don't consider prophets.With regard to the "appeal to chance", I just think its funny how history repeats itself.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.