The Kep Sounds

[wenglund]

Each of the KEP documents contain one or more of the following: characters, sounds, or English explanations.

Most of the KEP documents contain character and explanations. And, from what I can tell, only the Egyptian Counting Document (EC), the Egyptian Alphabets (EAs), and the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), contain sounds.

To my mind, the presence of these sounds raises a number of interesting questions: Where did they come from? Why are they there? Why aren't they included in all the KEP documents? Who was primarily responsible for producing the sounds? Etc.?

With all the active online discussions and presentations and articles concerning the KEP over the last several years, I have heard precious little mention of the sounds, let alone in-depth examinations. As such, I have opened this thread in the hopes of rectifying this potentially significant oversight--it may be that this most under-examined aspect of the KEP may hold the greatest key to uncovering the meaning and purpose of the documents. We'll see.

I welcome any and all productive input.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 2, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

To start off the discussion, I wish to note that the existence of sounds in some of the KEP documents isn't without precedence. A month or so prior to the Egyptian papyri arriving in Kirtland, and a month and a half prior to production beginning on the Egyptian Alphabets (EAs), William W. Phelps included a "Speciman of some of the pure language" in a letter to his wife. The specimen included sounds as well as characters and names and English explanations.

This specimen differed from an earlier Sample of Pure Language, which was a transcription of a Q&A session given by Joseph Smith on the topic, in that the earlier sample didn't contain sounds or characters.

What makes this all somewhat curious to me is that the specimen is in the handwriting of Phelps, as is also the Egyptian Counting document (EC), the primary Egyptian Alphabet (EA), and the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL).

It is also curious to me in that a small portions of the specimen (the characters and only one sound) found their way into the EA's.

And, from what I can tell, the only person to utilize these sounds in public, was Phelps. (The exception being where select names and sounds were the same. Some of these found their way into the BoA text as well as the English explanation of the Facsimiles.)

Does this tell us anything about who might have been primarily responsible for the sounds or production of these documents and/or their purpose? I don't know. However, it is something to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 2, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Things become even more fascinating when closely examining the sounds, themselves, and their possible relationships to the characters and English explanations.

let's begin by looking at the nature of the sounds, themselves.

The most obvious aspect of the sounds is that they were written using English letters. This suggests to me that the letters were intended to serve a phonetic purpose--where the sounds phonetically match our English usage of English letters.

The use of English letters for sounds isn't all that surprising or uncommon in "translations", though it may have implication as we delve more in-depth.

As with most any language, the KEP sounds consist of either individual or compound sounds, or "syllables", with the compound sounds frequently being separated individually by a dash (-). For example, the sound for the first character in the Egyptian Alphabet is an individual sound "ah," whereas the sound for the second character is the compound sound "Pha-e."

However, some of the compound sounds are not separated by dashes, as in the case of the sound for the 27th character, "Alkabeth," though the "syllables" make the break in sounds obvious ("Al-ka-beth"). This is important to understand for when we get into the vetting plausible relationships between the sounds and their associated characters and English explanations.

The individual sounds or syllables are from one to four letters ("e" as compared with "dees"), and individual sounds are compounded up to as many six or eight individual sounds or syllables, as with "Lish-Zi-ho e-oop Iota"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

Actually, Clinton does focus on, and explain, some of the most significant sounds in his paper, and shows what they mean, and where they came from. His MHA paper specifically focused on the sounds associated with the terms in the hierarchy found on the Sample (and even included images giving a visual explanation which is fascinating and extremely useful), but notes that the same methodology could be applied to the rest of the documents. That would most likely be a different paper. It's probably beyond the scope of the current paper he's working on to lay all of that out.

But the subject is being broached

Edited August 3, 2011 by nackhadlow

[wenglund]

Actually, Clinton does focus on, and explain, some of the most significant sounds in his paper, and shows what they mean, and where they came from. His MHA paper specifically focused on the sounds associated with the terms in the hierarchy found on the Sample (and even included images giving a visual explanation which is fascinating and extremely useful), but notes that the same methodology could be applied to the rest of the documents. That would most likely be a different paper. It's probably beyond the scope of the current paper he's working on to lay all of that out.

But the subject is being broached

I appreciate you letting me know. I have not as yet been privy to Clinton's MHA presentation, and I am not sure I ever will (unless he emails me a copy)--though it has been hinted about in other threads. It sounds enlightening. I will be interested to learn from Clinton whether and how much my findings here match up with his.

I have gathered from past conversations with Will Schryver that he may have done some work in this area, but I am not sure what.

At the very least, it is good to know I am not a lone traveler on this specific byway.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Now that we have covered the basic elements of the sounds, let's examine what, if any relationship there is between individual sounds and the characters to which they have been assigned.

During past discussions on the KEP, Chris Smith has intimated to me his belief that there is a correlation between the shape of the characters or graphemes and the associated sounds/syllables. I have found this to be the case in some instances, though not all.

It will take me some time to put together graphic comparisons, and when I complete it I will post it here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There are at least two ways to determine what, if any, relationship there exists between the shape of the characters and their assigned sounds: 1) by comparing composite characters with their known respective parts (graphemes) to see how well the composite sounds match the sounds of their respective graphemes; and 2) Compare composite sounds with their respective parts (syllables) to see how well the characters of the composite sounds match the characters of the respective syllables.

1. Composite character comparison. In the EAs and GAEL there are only two composite characters that we know for certain what are their respective parts (graphemes). We know this because the GAEL explicitly dissects them, and they alone, into their respective graphemes.

a. Character #69, Za Ki oan hiash, or Chalsidon hiash. Upon careful examination, it appears that the dissection of this character is treated in two separate ways (see the graphic below). First, the respective graphemes are identified individually by their individual sounds (Beth, Iota, Beth ku, Zub zool oan). Second, the respective graphemes are identified individually by their compound sounds (Ki, Hi or Oan, Ash).

As you can see, when the individual sounds are treated as individual sounds (Beth, Iota, Beth ku, Zub zool oan), they don't match the composite sound (Za Ki oan hiash or Chalsidon hiash). However, when the individual sounds are treated as compounds (Ki, Hi or Oan, Ash), there are some direct matches with at lest one of the composite sounds (Za ki oan hi ash). Granted, the individual compound sounds Hi and Oan are associated with a single grapheme, but show up separately in the composite sound. And, the Za syllable in the composite sound doesn't appear to have been included in the dissected parts. So, it isn't a perfect match.

It may be of interest, though, to note that this composite sound (Za Ki oan hiash or Chalsidon hiash) was one of the last sounds to be assigned to one of the last characters in the EA's. It also went through several incarnations: assigned first to dual characters (see EA WWP), then just one, then it doesn't show up in EA JS, and it went through three different spellings (Za Ki on-hish <or> Kulsidon hish, Za Kie on hiash, or Kal sidon hish, and finally Za Ki oan hiash or Chalsidon hiash.)

Also, the individual compound sounds (Ki, Hi, and Ash) were also late arrivals, and didn't show up until production was started on the GAEL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

Hey Wade, Phelps likely misheard what Joseph Smith said and mistakenly wrote down Beth ku and this should be Beth ka. This is clear from three independent pieces of evidence. First Beth ka and Beth ku have different shapes according to the EA and the shape in the GAEL is for Beth ka not Beth ku. Second, later on in Part 1 Degree 5 of the GAEL it is written Beth ka instead of Beth ku. Third, when this was translated to create Abraham 1:1-2 the definition fits with Beth ka better than Beth ku as can be seen below.

The first clause of Abraham 1:1 comes from breaking down the second of the pronunciations provided in the GAEL. According to the GAEL the first character has two related pronunciations Chalsidon hi ash and/or Za ki oan hi ash (Marquardt, 5-6). The second pronunciation contains the word Chalsidon which is phonetically similar to the word "Chaldeans" and the EAOC and EAWP means "the land of the Chaldeans". The GAEL says that the remaining hi and ash are related to the hieroglyphs Beth and Zub zool oan respectively. In part Joseph Smith defined Hi/Beth as "man's first residence"; and Ash/Zub zool oan has reference to "the first born, first man, father or fathers." Combining these composite parts we have "(Chalsidon) In the land of the Chaldeans, at the (Hi/Beth) residence of my (Ash/Zub zool oan) fathers." Thus Smith tells us that the upcoming action happening during the first chapter of Abraham takes place in the Ur of Chaldees (אור כשדים).

The next clause comes from Joseph breaking down the hieroglyph into seven subglyphs Beth, Iota, Beth ka, Zub zool oan, Ki/Iota, Hi/Beth and Ash/Zub zool oan as shown at the right with each sub glyph pictured in red. The first hieroglyphs Beth, which generally has the meaning of "residence", is combined with Iota, which is a representation of an eye and can mean either "to see" or a personal pronoun like "me or myself" combine to form the final clause of Abraham 1:1 "(Iota) saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of (Beth) residence. The first clause of Abraham 1:2 is derived from Beth ka which is defined in part as "another and larger place of residence" in which one can obtain "greater happiness" and a "more complete peace and rest for man" is translated by Joseph Smith as the phrase "(Beth ka) finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me". The next clause related to the first hieroglyph is "(Ki/Iota) I sought for the (Hi/Beth) blessings of the (Ash/Zub zool oan) fathers" which is a combination of the hieroglyph in the order starting with Ki/Iota meaning either "see" or the personal pronoun "me", Hi/Beth which in part is defined as "blessing or promise" and Ash/Zub zool oan which means "fathers".

A special thanks to Chris Smith for largely working this out in the first place in his paper of several years ago on the topic. My interpretation is only slightly different from his. With that small note I am out of this discussion. Carry on as usual Wade I will likely be making no further comments.

Edited August 3, 2011 by George Miller

[wenglund]

b. Character #66, Ki ah broam Ki ah brah oam Zub zool oan. The dissection of this composite character was a little more straightforward than the previous composite character in that there seems to be only one treatment (there is no separate treatment of non-compound and compound syllables). However, in the GAEL, the "Ki" and "Zub zool oan" graphemes and syllables don't appear sequentially together with the other two dissected graphemes/syllables, and were pulled together by me from other parts of the GAEL to create the graphic below.

As you can see, the sounds for the individual graphemes match very well the sound for the composite character. Granted, the shape of the characters aren't a perfect fit, but some latitude ought to be given for the presumed rudimentary artistic abilities and tools of the scribes.

It should be noted, though, that this composite character was a late addition to the EA's, and its sound, as well as sounds for some of its graphemes, evolved over time. The sound first given to this character in EA JS was "Ah broam A brahom Ki Ahbra am Ki Ah bram". This was later struck through and replaced with "Ki ah bram Ki ah bra oum Zub zool oan." In the EA OC, it was initially written as "Ah brom Ah bra oam Zub zool on," and later the "Ki" syllable was inserted before the two "Ah" syllables.

These changes to the composite sound evidently post-date the productions of degrees 1 & 2 of Part 1 of the GAEl so as to reflect the changes in the sounds for the respective graphemes in degrees 3 - 5 of the GAEL.

The additions and changes to this and the previous composite characters, late in the production cycle, will factor heavily in points to be made later in the discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Hey Wade, Phelps likely misheard what Joseph Smith said and mistakenly wrote down Beth ku and this should be Beth ka. This is clear from three independent pieces of evidence. First Beth ka and Beth ku have different shapes according to the EA and the shape in the GAEL is for Beth ka not Beth ku.

Excellent point. I had noticed it as well and was puzzled by it, but thought little about it because I wasn't sure whether the mistake, if any, was in the drawing of the character or the writing of the sound. I am still not sure.

Second, later on in Part 1 Degree 5 of the GAEL it is written Beth ka instead of Beth ku.

Actually, I believe it was written as "Beth Ka" in degrees 2-4 of Part 1 (I don't believe it showed up in degree 1), and as "Beth Ku" in degree 5. It was evidently written as an afterthought in the three previous degrees, likely following it being included sequentially in the 5th degree. Were it subsequently written as "Beth Ka" in degrees 2-4, this then raises the question whether the mistake, if any, was in the degrees 2-4. Who knows.

However, you will note that "Beth Ku" in degree 5 of Part 1 corresponds with "Beth Ku" in degree 5 of Part 2.

You may also note that certain other characters had somewhat different sounds in degree 5 than the other 4 degrees. For example, character #66, even after the sound was edited in degrees 1 & 2, it was written in degrees 1-4 as "Ki Ah broam," wheras in degree 5 it was written as "Kiah brah oam." And, the sound for character #69 in degrees 1-4 was written as "Ah broam," whereas in degree 5 it was written as "Ah brah oam." So, the difference in sounds between degree 5 and the other degrees, may argue against differing sound in degree 5 being a mistake.

What makes this of interest to me is that these two sounds (Kiah brah oam and Ah brah oam), like the sound in question (Beth ku), were parts of the only two composite characters that were dissected, and this late in the production game, leaving me to believe that the changes were being made on the fly so as to make all the pieces fit better--to what end, is still anyone's guess.

So, it is uncertain to me whether the change in sound from "Beth Ka" to "Beth Ku" in the 5th degree is indicative of a scribal mistake or an evolution in thought.

Third, when this was translated to create Abraham 1:1-2 the definition fits with Beth ka better than Beth ku as can be seen below.

I am not sure I can agree with the presumption that Abr. 1:1-2 was translated from the EA and GAEL. In fact, I have been in the process for some time now amassing considerable evidence to the contrary (see the other thread).

However, it may prove fruitful to consider some of your points below.

The first clause of Abraham 1:1 comes from breaking down the second of the pronunciations provided in the GAEL. According to the GAEL the first character has two related pronunciations Chalsidon hi ash and/or Za ki oan hi ash (Marquardt, 5-6). The second pronunciation contains the word Chalsidon which is phonetically similar to the word "Chaldeans" and the EAOC and EAWP means "the land of the Chaldeans". The GAEL says that the remaining hi and ash are related to the hieroglyphs Beth and Zub zool oan respectively. In part Joseph Smith defined Hi/Beth as "man's first residence"; and Ash/Zub zool oan has reference to "the first born, first man, father or fathers."

Combining these composite parts we have "(Chalsidon) In the land of the Chaldeans, at the (Hi/Beth) residence of my (Ash/Zub zool oan) fathers." Thus Smith tells us that the upcoming action happening during the first chapter of Abraham takes place in the Ur of Chaldees (אור כשדים).

In other words, you arbitrarily used the English explanation for the composite character in the EA's, and for reasons unexplained, you then added to the composite explanation an English explanation of one of the composite's parts, taken from the 1st degree of Part 1 of the GAEL. You then added yet again to the composite explanation the English explanation of another of the composite parts, this time taken from the 5th degree of Part 1 of the GAEL. In other words, you not only added explanations to an already complete explanation of the composite character, but you did so by drawing arbitrarily from different degrees of the GAEL. Sorry, I am not buying it.

The next clause comes from Joseph breaking down the hieroglyph into seven subglyphs Beth, Iota, Beth ka, Zub zool oan, Ki/Iota, Hi/Beth and Ash/Zub zool oan.

If you look closely at my graphic above, you will see that the graphemes for Beth, Iota, Beth Ku (or Ka), and Zub zool oan, cover the same areas of the composite character as do Ki, Hi or Oan, and Ash. As such, what you seem to be suggesting is that each part of the composite character has two separate English explanations. Again, I don't buy it. I prefer my explanation instead.

as shown at the right with each sub glyph pictured in red. The first hieroglyphs Beth, which generally has the meaning of "residence", is combined with Iota, which is a representation of an eye and can mean either "to see" or a personal pronoun like "me or myself" combine to form the final clause of Abraham 1:1 "(Iota) saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of (Beth) residence. The first clause of Abraham 1:2 is derived from Beth ka which is defined in part as "another and larger place of residence" in which one can obtain "greater happiness" and a "more complete peace and rest for man" is translated by Joseph Smith as the phrase "(Beth ka) finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me". The next clause related to the first hieroglyph is "(Ki/Iota) I sought for the (Hi/Beth) blessings of the (Ash/Zub zool oan) fathers" which is a combination of the hieroglyph in the order starting with Ki/Iota meaning either "see" or the personal pronoun "me", Hi/Beth which in part is defined as "blessing or promise" and Ash/Zub zool oan which means "fathers".

Again, not only are you duplicating explanations for no good reason, but you are arbitrarily picking bits and pieces of explanations scattered throughout the EA's and GAEL. In short, what you are essentially doing is taking a crowbar and scalpel to the data in hopes of making it fit your theory.

But, this is wondering somewhat afield of the specific topic of this thread (the KEP Sounds), and so I will leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 4, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

2. Composite sounds comparison. By my count, in the EA, there wre approximately 69 characters assigned sounds. Of those 69 characters:

1. Ten of the characters were assigned only a single sound/syllable, all but two of which were listed in Part 1 of the 1st degree the EA's.

2. Nineteen of the characters were assigned two sounds/syllables, six in Part 1, and thirteen in part 2 of the 1st degree of the EA's.

3. Twenty-one of the characters were assigned three sounds/syllables, five in Part 1, fifteen in Part 2, and one in Part 5.

4. Ten of the characters were assigned four sounds/syllables, six in Part 1, and four in Part 2.

5. Three of the characters were assigned five sounds/syllables, one in Part 1, one in Par 2, and one in Part 5.

6. Four of the characters were assigned six sound/syllables, one in Part 1, and three in Part 2.

7. One of the characters was assigned nine sounds, in Part 4.

A number of the characters in Parts 2-5 in the EA's were reassigned to Part 1 in the GAEL. And, most of the characters for the various parts of the first degree in the EA's, were either each dealt with in each of the five degrees in Part 1 of the GAEL, or each dealt with in separate degrees in Part 2 of the GAEL.

I mention all of this so as to point out that the sounds assigned to the characters appear to have become more elaborate (assigned more sounds/syllables) from part to part or from degree to degree.

I also mention some of this to lay a proper foundation for comparing the sounds with the characters to see how well they fit with each other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

In the Egyptian Counting document (EC), there are 79 characters that are assigned sounds. The first ten are each comprised of a single character and assigned a single sound. The remainder are each comprised of multiple characters and multiple sounds. For example, the sound signifying the English number one, is "Eh", and the sound signifying the number ten is "Tah," whereas the sound for the characters signifying the number eleven is "Eh Tah" (10 & 1 are 11). Also, the individual characters associated with "Eh" and "Tah" respectively, are combined, one next to the other, to form the characters for "Eh Tah."

What this means is that at least for the EC, there is a strong correlation between the characters and the sounds. Whether this holds true for the EA/GAEL, we shall see.

My reason for mentioning this is, some of the sounds in the EC are also in the EA/GAEL. These EC sounds that show up in the EA/GAEL are: "Eh" (4 instances), "Ni" (1 instance), "Veh" (2 instances), "Tah" (1 instance), "Eh Ni" (1 instance), and "Ni Tah Veh" (1 instance).

And, since we know the shape of the characters for EC sounds, we can compare them with the characters in the EA that contain the EC sounds to determine if the strong correlation between the characters and sounds in the EC is also the case with the EA/GAEL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As indicated, of the 69 EA characters, 58 of them have composite sounds (multiple sounds/syllables): 19 have 2 syllables, 21 have 3 syllables, 10 have 4 syllables, 3 have 5 syllables, 4 have 6 syllables, and 1 has 9 syllables. If one assumes that each syllable is associated with a specific part/grapheme of the composite character, this would mean that there were approximately 190 graphemes.

There isn't enough time, space, or interest to graphically detail and test all 190 graphemes to see how well they match. So, let's look at a reasonable sample using the "Beth" sound.

As you can see, the non-composite "Beth" sound is a vertical line (shown in red). As best I can tell, only 4 out of the 14 composite sounds containing the "Beth" sound also contain the "Beth" grapheme (marked in red) in the respective composite characters. This doesn't bode well for the assumption that there is a correlation between the shape of the characters and their sounds.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

-continued-

This assumption is made even less likely when one considers that:

a. There are a number of other characters that contain the vertical line grapheme, but not the "Beth" sound. This may suggest that whatever match may exist with such a common grapheme, it is likely coincidental rather than planned.

b. Besides, the 4 characters that contain the vertical line grapheme and have the "Beth" sound, also contain compound sounds of some of the other characters that don't have the vertical line. For example, the character with the sound "Al Ka Beth" has two of the same syllables as the character (marked in green) with the sound of "Beth Ka, " yet the two sets of graphemes bear little or no resemblance. The same holds true for "Al Ke Beth" and "Beth Ke", "Al Ki Beth" and "Beth Ki", as well as "Al Ko Beth" and "Beth Ko." In other words, the 4 characters that showed a match with the "Beth" grapheme, don't match with other graphemes. However, the character for "E Beth Ka" possibly contains the graphemes for "Beth Ka" (both shown in green). Also, the character/grapheme with the sounds "Beth Ku" (marked in turquoise) do show up in the character with the sound "Beth Ku ain tri Ette" as expected. Yet,, it also contains the grapheme for the compound sound "Beth Ko," but the "Ko" syllable isn't a part of the "Beth Ku ain tri Ette" sound. Nor, for that matter does the composite character for the composite sound "Beth Ku ain tri Ette" (marked in lavender and turquoise) match very well the composite character for the composite sound "E Beth Ku ain tri Ette."

In short, of the 41 graphemes/syllables comprising the 14 composite characters/sounds containt the syllable "Beth", at best 6 match up, but those 6 failed to match up when compared with related composite character/sounds.

This virtual lack of matches between the shapes of the characters/graphemes and the composite sounds/syllables in the example above, seems to also be the case for almost all the other composite characters in the EA/GAEL. The exceptions to this rule are those two composite characters mentioned earlier in the thread, that were produced late in the EA process, and then later assigned compound sounds or revised sounds to the respective graphemes that better fit the two composite characters/sounds.

Anther possible exception are the characters/graphemes associated with the non-composite sounds "Zub" and "Zool" and their related composite characters/sounds "Zub Zool, "Zool Eh," and "Zub Zool Eh," though the matches fail when compared with "Zub Zool Oan" and 2 other composite characters that include this composite sound.

In other words, in the EA and GAEL, of the 190 graphemes that are presumed to comprise the 58 composite characters, there aren't any solid matches between the shapes of characters and sounds except in a few cases where there was deliberately modification.

This finding seems to comport well with the one of the rules stated in the GAEL: "This character is from the first degree It has an arbitrary sound or signification which is Beth; and also a compound sound which is Za [elsewhere "Beth" is given the compound sounds "Hi" and "Oan"]….Every character in this alphabet is subject to the above restrictions." GAEL, p.20--emphasis mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 5, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

As you can see, the non-composite "Beth" sound is a vertical line (shown in red). As best I can tell, only 4 out of the 14 composite sounds containing the "Beth" sound also contain the "Beth" grapheme (marked in red) in the respective composite characters. This doesn't bode well for the assumption that there is a correlation between the shape of the characters and their sounds.

Anyone familiar with basic English should be able to see how nonsensical this argument really is. By your logic, words beginning with "ph" cannot sound like /ɛf/ at all, since the "p" by itself sounds like /pi/. The fact is languages are generally more complex and dynamic, and Joseph Smith understood this. Everything in the GAEL fits much, much easier into our model, than the one Schryver has constructed for an enciphering project. The fact that sounds were explicated is evidence for an attempt to translate a spoken language, not to encipher codes for stuff that was intended to be kept secret.

[wenglund]

Next week, when I get some time, I will begin to look at whether there may be a strong correlation between the EA sounds/syllables and the their assigned English explanations.From what I can tell early in my research, the strong correlation is looking promising.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Anyone familiar with basic English should be able to see how nonsensical this argument really is. By your logic, words beginning with "ph" cannot sound like /ɛf/ at all, since the "p" by itself sounds like /pi/. The fact is languages are generally more complex and dynamic, and Joseph Smith understood this.

You raise a good point, though I don't see how it renders my argument nonsensical, rather than supporting it. What you are suggesting is when characters like the letter "p" are combined with another character like the letter "h", the composite sound is different from the combined sounds of the individual characters. This actually supports my contention that the there isn't a firm correlation between individual characters and the individual sounds. Sometimes, when characters are combined, they make different sounds than the combined sounds of the individual characters.

Unfortunately, your mistaken assumptions didn't stop there. You actually got things exactly backwards with your analogy. I pointed out how the "Beth" sound was associated with composite characters that DIDN'T appear to contain the individual character associated with the "Beth" sound. In other words, quite the opposite from your analogy, this would be comparable to a word containing the "p" sound, though absent the letter "p".

Granted, there are possible instances in various languages where the pronunciation of a word contains a sound of a letter not in the word, though I can't think of one off hand. Such instances, however, also underscore my point about there being no firm correlation between individual sounds and individual characters. Some times the sound occurs absent the character.

Everything in the GAEL fits much, much easier into our model, than the one Schryver has constructed for an enciphering project.

First, I have no idea what your "model" is. Perhaps you can share it with us. For the purposes of this thread, I am particularly interested in the section of your model that addresses possible relationships between each of the EA/GAEL characters and their respective sounds, as well as the possible relationship between each of the sounds and their respective English explanations.

Second, Schryver didn't delve much, if at all, into the relationship between characters and sound or sounds and English explanation (his presentation was focused more on the characters and English explanations), so his presentation isn't relevant to this thread.

The fact that sounds were explicated is evidence for an attempt to translate a spoken language, not to encipher codes for stuff that was intended to be kept secret.

I have mentioned in the past that the sounds may be there to provide a means for speaking the language. I would also suggest that in writing the language, it may be easier to use the sounds than drawing the characters. Each of these points may factor in as the discussion progresses.

However, this is again beside the point to which you object, as well as beside the point of this thread--which is devoted not to the existence of the sounds, but to the relationship of those sounds to their associated characters and English explanation.

Now, even though you got a number of things wrong on your first post to this thread, I don't want you to get discouraged, and I hope you will make further attempts to contribute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 11, 2011 by wenglund

[LeSellers]

In other words, quite the opposite from your analogy, this would be comparable to a word containing the "p" sound, though absent the letter "p".

You mean like "hiccough"?

Lehi

[wenglund]

You mean like "hiccough"?

Yes, good one (though the word evolved to the alternative spelling: hiccup). I also had in mind the "y" sound made by two LL's in Spanish, as in Gallegos.

Another might be the "w" sound in Arkansas.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 11, 2011 by wenglund

[LeSellers]

Yes, good one (though the word evolved to the alternative spelling: hiccup).

"-ough" is the most complex string in English orthography. It represents, as I recall, seven distinct sounds: Our "up" in hiccough (and this is the only word that uses it), "oo" in "through", aw in thought, /f/ in tough, "ou" in drought, oh as in thorough, and one that escapes me just now.

With ideographs (like the Chinese "alphabet", and classic Egyptian), there is no sound relationship with the characters, and, as we have seen in Egyptian and our own Roman alphabet, the characters evolved from being pictographs/ideographs to becoming true letters. The bet/beth of Hebrew was, originally the symbol for "house". It became /b/ much later. "Gimel" was "camel" first, then /g/. Aleph, ox; daleth, door; and so on.

Unless one subscribes to the theory that God revealed Hebrew to one of Abraham's ancestors, this writing system was a human invention (perhaps modeled on Adamic, but that's a different topic altogether), the trail of written language always starts our with pictures, very much as in Kipling's Just So Stories, "How the Alphabet was Made", only slower.

Lehi

Edited August 12, 2011 by LeSellers

[wenglund]

"-ough" is the most complex string in English orthography. It represents, as I recall, seven distinct sounds: Our "up" in hiccough (and this is the only word that uses it), "oo" in "through", aw in thought, /f/ in tough, "ou" in drought, oh as in thorough, and one that escapes me just now.

With ideographs (like the Chinese "alphabet", and classic Egyptian), there is no sound relationship with the characters, and, as we have seen in Egyptian and our own Roman alphabet, the characters evolved from being pictographs/idoegraphs to beocing true letters. The bet/beth of Hebrew was, originally the symbol for "house". It became /b/ much later. "Gimel" was "camel" first, then /g/. Aleph, ox; daleth, door; and so on.

Unless one subscribes to the theory that God revealed Hebrew to one of Abraham's ancestors, this writing system was a human invention (perhaps modeled on Adamioc, but that's a different topic altogether), the trail of written language always starts our with pictures, very much as in Kipling's Just So Storeis, "How the Alphabet was Made", only slower. Lehi

Interesting points, though I am not sure we can reasonably assume the language in the GAEL has Abrahamic origins.

Coincidently, the Hebrew "Aleph" is symbolized by an ox (which in many cultures is a symbol for God), and in the GAEL it is explained as "In the beginning with God, the son, or first born"; and the Hebrew ("beth" is symbolized by a house, and the GAEL "beth" is explained as a place of residence. When the two are put together "Aleph beth" or the anglicized "alphabet", in both languages it may be understood to represents the house of God--a fundamental Kabbalistic notion that allegedly has its roots in Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Okay, let's begin to examine whether there is a strong relationship between individual sounds/syllables and the associated English explanations. And, since "ho e oop hah" has created something of a stir lately, let's look in that direction.

Since none of the individual sounds/syllables that make up the composite sound "ho e oop hah" (ho, e, oop, or hah) are explained individually, let's look at the next best thing. The composite sound "ho oop hah" is explained in the EA/GAEL first degree as "Crown of a princes, or signifies Queen." Whereas, "ho e oop hah" is explained as "Crown of a prince or king." The difference between these two sounds is "e", and the difference in the explanations is male/female. This suggests to me that the "e" sound, in this instance, denotes the masculine gender, or it refers to man.

If so, one may expect that whenever the "e" sound/syllable appears in the EA/GAEL, the explanation will be masculine in gender or be about men. Let's see:

1) Ho e oop is explained as: "A young unmarried man--a prince." This works.

2) Pha e is explained as: "The first man or one who has kingly power, or King." This works--though this sound is changed to "Phah eh" in the GAEL.

3) Ho e oop hah pha e is explained as: "Riegn, government, power right, kingdom." This isn't gender specific, but contains two "e"'s. However, it is explained in the fourth degree as: "A land or Kingdom or country, governed by wise upright rulers or Kings, or Judges, good, excellent and wholesome laws." And, in the fifth degree it is explained as: "Patriarchal government; or authority..." This works.

4) Ja ho e opp is only explained in the fifth degree, as: "An ambassador: one delegated with Kingly power; one authorized to execute judgement for the King; a swift messenger one whose power cannot be escaped, one next to supreme." This works.

5) Pha ho e oop is explained as: "Royal family, royal blood or Pharoah, or supreme power or King." This works.

6) Lish-Zi-ho e-oop Iota is only explained in the fifth degree, as: "The glory of the celestial Kingdom: The connection of attributes; many parts perfected, and compounded into one Having been united, being united, one glory above all other glories, as the the excels the moon in light, this glory excels being filled with the same glory equality." This is gender neutral.

7) Su e eh ni is explained as: "What other person is that? Who?" This isn't gender specific.

These are all the composite sounds in the EA/GAEL that include the "e" sound/syllable, and for the most part, their explanations are masculine, and those that aren't masculine are gender neutral (though applicable to things typically associated with men), thus suggesting a strong relationship between the "e" sound and male gendered explanations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

6) Lish-Zi-ho e-oop Iota is only explained in the fifth degree, as: "The glory of the celestial Kingdom: The connection of attributes; many parts perfected, and compounded into one Having been united, being united, one glory above all other glories, as the the excels the moon in light, this glory excels being filled with the same glory equality." This is gender neutral.

Hey Wade- I had come to the same conclusion as you about the "e" sound in the EA/GAEL. I would like to make a few brief comments on Lish zi ho e oop iota. Note that the lish is a phoneme that is included in Ah lish. Combining the meanings of Ah lish from the 1st-5th degrees gives a meaning as follows.

"The first being who exercises supreme power. The name of the first being clothed with supreme intelligence, power, glory, justice, mercy without beginning of life or end of life comprehending all things, seeing all things - the invisible eternal godhead."

Thus the inclusion of lish suggests that Joseph Smith associated this phoneme with a primordial God. In Joseph Smith's theology a person who was exalted to the degree of perfection in the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom also needs a companion of this exalted degree in the form of a wife or wives.

It is not surprising that we find another important phoneme in Lish zi ho e oop iota, that of Zi. In several places throughout the KEP we find the phoneme associated with femaleness. For example see Zi, Zi oop hah, Zip zi, Zip zi iota vah and Io ho hah oop zip zi. This can also be seen in comparing a couple of words from the EA/GAEL.

Zi oop hah: An umarried woman, virgin princess, a beautiful virgin who is fair to look upon and admired for her beauty.

Ho e oop: A young unmarried man, a virtuous prince.

or

Io ho hah oop zip zi: Title or dignity of one who is appointed to wait on the Queen.

Io ho hah oop: Title or dignity of one who is appointed to wait upon the King.

Here you have two sets of words with similar meanings. In the first one the female version utilizes "zi" while the male version contains "e". In the second one the base is male while the female version adds the "zi" phoneme.

Now when we return to Lish zi ho e oop iota we have both male "e" and female "zi" phonemes connected in the same word as though we are taking about a divine couple in the Celestial kingdom. This is born out by the definition where their eternal marriage seals a "connection of attributes" of the male and the female thus making them "compounded into one" and as they have "been united" as a divine couple. IOW the word Lish zi ho e oop iota is not really an exception to the rule.

Edited August 15, 2011 by George Miller

[wenglund]

Hey Wade- I had come to the same conclusion as you about the "e" sound in the EA/GAEL. I thought I would comment briefly on Lish zi ho e oop iota. Note that the lish is a phoneme that is is included in Ah lish which combining the meanings from the 1st-5th degrees has a meaning as follows.

"The first being who exercises supreme power. The name of the first being clothed with supreme intelligence, power, glory, justice, mercy without beginning of life or end of life comprehending all things, seeing all things - the invisible eternal godhead."

Thus the inclusion of lish suggests that Joseph Smith associated this phoneme with a primordial God. In Joseph Smith's theology a person who was exalted to the degree of perfection in the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom also need a companion of of this exalted degree in the form of a wife or wives. It is not surprising that we find another important phoneme in the definition, that of Zi. In several places throughout the KEP we find the phoneme associated with the femaleness. For example see Zi, Zi oop hah, and Zip zi. This can also be seen in comparing a word from Part 1 of the EA/GAEL.

Zi oop hah: An umarried woman, virgin princess, a beautiful virgin who is fair to look upon and admired for her beauty.

Ho e oop: A young unmarried man, a virtuous prince.

Here you have similar meanings with the male haveing "e" while the female has "zi" in the title.

Now when we return to Lish zi ho e oop iota we have both male "e" and female "zi" phonemes connected in the same word as though we are taking about a divine couple in the Celestial kingdom. This is born out by the definition where their eternal marriage seals a "connection of attributes" of the male and the female thus making them "compounded into one" and as they have "been united" as a divine couple. IOW the word Lish zi ho e oop iota is not really an exception to the rule.

Aside from the presumption that Joseph is the sole or primary source for the sounds, I found your analysis quite fascinating and resonate with where my mind is going on this. I had also made the connection between Zi and "woman", but I hadn't yet considered "zi" and "e" in combination. Your conclusion taste good to me. [thumbs up]

Fun stuff!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 15, 2011 by wenglund

[DonBradley]

Fascinating questions and analysis, Wade.

This is really what we need here--to extensively examine the documents on their own terms. Once we really "get" what they're doing, then we'll have a better idea of their authorship and purposes.

I think Phelps's great interest in languages and the esoteric, and his later use of the GAEL in the letter he wrote for Joseph to James A. Bennett, suggest he likely had a strong influence on the larger Egyptian-alphabet project. The exact nature of this role still needs to be established. While Joseph was clearly involved (witness his handwriting in one of the EA documents, etc.) and one would tend to expect him to be in charge, to identify Joseph as the sole actor in this work seems unjustified. Why does the work reflect the peculiar interests of Phelps?

Don