Beans and the BoM

[krose]

why?

Well, it's poor translating, and it just doesn't make sense.

Let's say I'm translating a sentence from Japanese into English, which includes the following words (using romanized text):

- tako

- unagi

- ebi

- kani

- maguro

- ika

I translate the sentence to say, "During that week they consumed large amounts of seafood, including octopus, eel, ebi, kani, tuna, and squid." Now why would I choose to leave two words in the original tongue when their counterparts, shrimp and crab, are well known to English speakers?

Of course, in the case of items newly introduced into the West, such as sushi and sashimi at one time, it makes sense to import the word along with the item, rather than create a new term for it. And even in this case, I would expect a good translator to provide a description of the unfamiliar item using familiar terms ("a curelom is like unto a giraffe, but plain colored, and with a shorter neck"). But that's only if he/she wants the text to be understood by the target audience, which may be asking too much.

A good translator would not leave selected words in the source language if they can easily be translated. But someone whose aim is to impress people with a few exotic, foreign-sounding words probably would insert a few of them.

[Sevenbak]

Ever heard of semantic change?

Are you saying Joseph Smith didn't really mean barley when we wrote barley, but instead sheum is supposed to be barley?

What then is barley, in the context that Joseph Smith used it? They're in the same sentence as a list of different grains, so they must mean two different things.

[krose]

I still have not seen a good explanation for why any translator would just copy words in the original language, with no apparent effort to explain their meaning.

[LeSellers]

I still have not seen a good explanation for why any translator would just copy words in the original language, with no apparent effort to explain their meaning.

Tell me, please, what "green" looks like.

You might also translate "pralmination".

It is easy for me (who has done some translation) to see exactly why this would happen.

If we take the case of "Curmom", let's assume that this beast was extinct (or at least wholly unknown to Moroni), and he ran across the word in Ether's plates (by whom the animal was known). How could Moroni explain what one was: he did not know.

Furthermore, had Joseph written the Book of Mormon, he surely would have told us what a curmom was

[krose]

Furthermore, had Joseph written the Book of Mormon, he surely would have told us what a curmom was

[Zakuska]

Are you saying Joseph Smith didn't really mean barley when we wrote barley, but instead sheum is supposed to be barley?

What then is barley, in the context that Joseph Smith used it? They're in the same sentence as a list of different grains, so they must mean two different things.

Why does it always have to be Joseph Smiths fault?

Scribal error? Interpolation?

Both come to mind as viable options.

Perhaps Joseph Smith actually said:

"Shuem OR barley" and the Scribe wrote "Shuem AND barley"

[LeSellers]

you have translated. Have you ever, in any translation work you've done, simply reproduced a foreign word and left it, without even an attempted explanation (no matter how poor an attempt, since of course there are always concepts that don't translate directly or well)?

No, but there was no reason for me to have done so.

And in this case, the translator is supposedly God, the almighty and all knowing one.

CFR. No one has ever made that claim except antis.

Lehi

[krose]

Here they come... the most abused three letters on the board:

CFR. No one has ever made that claim except antis.

If God is not the translator, then who? Who or what caused the words to be displayed on the rock if it wasn't God?

Joseph couldn't have done it himself, no matter how much time he spent "studying it out" or whatever. Inspiration through "the spirit" or some other mechanism is just another tool for God to use.

[Zakuska]

Here they come... the most abused three letters on the board:

If God is not the translator, then who? Who or what caused the words to be displayed on the rock if it wasn't God?

Joseph couldn't have done it himself, no matter how much time he spent "studying it out" or whatever. Inspiration through "the spirit" or some other mechanism is just another tool for God to use.

All of which has nothing what so ever to do with Scribal tampering after the fact. Did Joseph compare what was written on the rock with what the scribe wrote?

No he read it back and the scribe checked it. Thus the many spelling errors in the original manuscripts.

You are forgetting the Human element in processing involved. Now if the scribe was equipped with a "divine usb port" in the back of his neck or even Joseph Smith and was a "divine printing device" you might have a point.

[krose]

All of which has nothing what so ever to do with Scribal tampering after the fact. Did Joseph compare what was written on the rock with what the scribe wrote?

No he read it back and the scribe checked it. Thus the many spelling errors in the original manuscripts.

You are forgetting the Human element in processing involved. Now if the scribe was equipped with a "divine usb port" in the back of his neck or even Joseph Smith and was a "divine printing device" you might have a point.

According to Martin Harris in Roberts' Comprehensive History of the Church:

"... if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used"

If true, this appears to leave little room for transcribing errors.

But really that is beside the point, since this thread has not been about grammar and spelling errors. I doubt you are claiming that the foreign words such as sheum and neas were inserted by scribes. Surely not.

[Zakuska]

According to Martin Harris in Roberts' Comprehensive History of the Church:

"... if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used"

If true, this appears to leave little room for transcribing errors.

Personally I have my doubts about Martin Harris' account of the translation process, because like I said it turns Joseph Smith and his scribes into a "divine typewriter" and does not account for the many spelling and grammer errors in trhe original manuscripts that have survived. There was still the Human factor of Joseph reading, the scribe writing then the scribe reading it back and Joseph checking the text.

But really that is beside the point, since this thread has not been about grammar and spelling errors. I doubt you are claiming that the foreign words such as sheum and neas were inserted by scribes. Surely not.

No Im not. All I have said that in the case of "Shuem and Barley" I could easily see the scribe, tired after hours of dictation, replacing an "OR" with an "AND".

[LeSellers]

If God is not the translator, then who?

Joseph Smith, just as the title page says.

Who or what caused the words to be displayed on the rock if it wasn't God?

That's an entirely different proposition, is it not?

Furthermore, any reference to "words [being] displayed on a rock" relies purely on second-hand sources.

If we assume the Harris account to be accurate, that still does not mean that God was the Translator. Joseph's participation was more than as a "potted plant".

Joseph couldn't have done it himself, no matter how much time he spent "studying it out" or whatever. Inspiration through "the spirit" or some other mechanism is just another tool for God to use.

While the first sentence is true, to an extent, the second does not follow therefrom. Translators use dictionaries and phrase books all the time, but the work is theirs.

Unless you are proposing that the only mechanism Joseph used was reading from an early Kindle, which has no serious basis, Joseph was a translator in the fullest sense of the word. The only advantage he had was that before he dictated the translation, he got validation from the Supervising Editor.

Lehi

[krose]

... does not account for the many spelling and grammer errors in trhe original manuscripts that have survived.

But his making it up easily accounts for them.

All I have said that in the case of "Shuem and Barley" I could easily see the scribe, tired after hours of dictation, replacing an "OR" with an "AND".

So what you're saying is that barley may have been meant to be appositional, defining the Nephitish word sheum. That's a creative way of looking at it. But even so, there are still other instances of undefined, foreign-sounding words in the text, and that's the issue for me here.

[Zakuska]

But his making it up easily accounts for them.

Occams razor says that just like the Bible scribes Joseph scribes could spell no better.

So what you're saying is that barley may have been meant to be appositional, defining the Nephitish word sheum. That's a creative way of looking at it. But even so, there are still other instances of undefined, foreign-sounding words in the text, and that's the issue for me here.

No Im saying that perhaps Joseph said "Shuem" and then made a translation of the word "or Barley" to clarify what the foreign word was. And that the scribe wrote AND instead of OR.

We see kind of the same thing happening with the descriptions of the Liahona with each new reference it turns into a Compass.

1. 2 Ne. 5: 12 12 And I, Nephi, had also brought the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass; and also the ball, or compass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written.

[krose]

... Joseph was a translator in the fullest sense of the word. The only advantage he had was that before he dictated the translation, he got validation from the Supervising Editor.

Validation is one thing, but could you please explain for me how you envision him coming up with the text in the first place? Outside the second-hand sources, all we have is speculation, so I'd like to see yours, because I sure can't come up with what that process might look like.

Again, I can't see any way for a person to "translate" a document that he can't read. The only viable process I can see is him being given the words to be written.

[krose]

Occams razor says that just like the Bible scribes Joseph scribes could spell no better.

You've got me scratching my head with this statement. I don't know where you're going with it.

No Im saying that perhaps Joseph said "Shuem" and then made a translation of the word "or Barley" to clarify what the foreign word was. And that the scribe wrote AND instead of OR.

Yes, that's what I thought you were saying.

[Zakuska]

Just making the point that before the F7 key spelling in ancient texts was herendous.

[krose]

Validation is one thing, but could you please explain for me how you envision him coming up with the text in the first place? Outside the second-hand sources, all we have is speculation, so I'd like to see yours, because I sure can't come up with what that process might look like.

Again, I can't see any way for a person to "translate" a document that he can't read. The only viable process I can see is him being given the words to be written.

Where did Lehi go? I was looking forward to his explanation for a plausible translation process that would have Joseph coming up with his own words (including his own spelling and grammar), resulting in an accurate translation of a document that he could not read.

Pedro also disappeared when the same question came up in his "Hebrew tidbit" thread about which vs who.

[LeSellers]

I was looking forward to [Lehi's] explanation for a plausible translation process that would have Joseph coming up with his own words (including his own spelling and grammar), resulting in an accurate translation of a document that he could not read.

You may not believe this, but I do not exist to do your bidding.

However, the response is singularly simple: Joseph, as a seer, could see. He had visions, like, e.g., Section 76. He and Sidney Rigdon saw the kingdoms, inter alia, and described what they saw while others transcribed their description(s).

I have no difficulty with Joseph's "seeing" the Book of Mormon as a sort of a movie (although this word really prejudices the reader because that's not what I mean) and then describing what he "saw". Proper names may have been subtitles, passages from, e.g., Isaiah, could have been "text", but, in general, it was subtle impressions that Joseph had to "work out in his mind".

Lehi

[Zakuska]

You may not believe this, but I do not exist to do your bidding.

However, the response is singularly simple: Joseph, as a seer, could see. He had visions, like, e.g., Section 76. He and Sidney Rigdon saw the kingdoms, inter alia, and described what they saw while others transcribed their description(s).

I have no difficulty with Joseph's "seeing" the Book of Mormon as a sort of a movie (although this word really prejudices the reader because that's not what I mean) and then describing what he "saw". Proper names may have been subtitles, passages from, e.g., Isaiah, could have been "text", but, in general, it was subtle impressions that Joseph had to "work out in his mind".

Lehi

Now come on LeSellers, everbody knows Joseph Smith was nothing more than a "divine typewritter" and with a "divine USB cable" plugged into the back of his head he could do nothing of his own will and accord. I mean isn't that really what a "SEER" is... A divine marionette.

[krose]

You may not believe this, but I do not exist to do your bidding.

However, the response is singularly simple: Joseph, as a seer, could see. He had visions, like, e.g., Section 76. He and Sidney Rigdon saw the kingdoms, inter alia, and described what they saw while others transcribed their description(s).

I have no difficulty with Joseph's "seeing" the Book of Mormon as a sort of a movie (although this word really prejudices the reader because that's not what I mean) and then describing what he "saw". Proper names may have been subtitles, passages from, e.g., Isaiah, could have been "text", but, in general, it was subtle impressions that Joseph had to "work out in his mind".

Thanks for your reply. The topic was in jeopardy of falling off the page and being forgotten, as the other one I mentioned did.

That's really the only other option I can see as well. The only way I can see for a person who can't read a book to "translate" it (if we can really call it that) is for him to see it happen and then describe it. Either he has to have the actual text provided for him, or he has to have it provided through some kind of vision, so he could see it happen and then narrate the story.

But that brings up more questions. First, where do the purported hebraisms and chiasmus come from if the words are Joseph's? Those could only come from a word-for-word, traditional translation.

And it's not just names and quotes that would need some kind of labels or "subtitles," but all the dialogue, the speeches and conversations (unless they were dubbed into English for him). There's a lot of that. IIRC, most of the book is preaching and teaching, and all of it in first-person voice.

That all seems like an odd way for a deity to go about providing a translation, especially if accuracy of transmission is important. If I may invoke Occam myself, the simplest and most direct way to get the book into English, close to the way it was originally written, would be to give Joseph the words, and have them transcribed.

[Zakuska]

Thanks for your reply. The topic was in jeopardy of falling off the page and being forgotten, as the other one I mentioned did.

That's really the only other option I can see as well. The only way I can see for a person who can't read a book to "translate" it (if we can really call it that) is for him to see it happen and then describe it. Either he has to have the actual text provided for him, or he has to have it provided through some kind of vision, so he could see it happen and then narrate the story.

But that brings up more questions. First, where do the purported hebraisms and chiasmus come from if the words are Joseph's? Those could only come from a word-for-word, traditional translation.

And it's not just names and quotes that would need some kind of labels or "subtitles," but all the dialogue, the speeches and conversations (unless they were dubbed into English for him). There's a lot of that. IIRC, most of the book is preaching and teaching, and all of it in first-person voice.

That all seems like an odd way for a deity to go about providing a translation, especially if accuracy of transmission is important. If I may invoke Occam myself, the simplest and most direct way to get the book into English, close to the way it was originally written, would be to give Joseph the words, and have them transcribed.

And thus the human element is added to the mix and not to mention the fact that we have one more layer of human hands in those transcripts being prepared for printing on a press, and going through an editing process, add to that 150+ years.