Horse-Tapir Laughable?

[Olavarria]

There are some that say that the idea of a "Nephite horse" being a tapir is a joke. The following is a selection from Combined Dictionary–Concordance of the Yucatecan Mayan Language

Tzimin 1) db) tapir: Tapirella dowi. After the conquest also applied to the horse.

cam) octantzimin: caballo ligero. cam) thultzimin: macho o mula. cam) tzimin: caballo.

crm) yahau zazac tzimin: 13: el caballo blanco señorial, sandalia de fibre de henequen. crm) u yah tzimin: 2: muermo de bestia. crm) ix al tzimin: 3: yegua parida.

ebm) tzimin. tapirella dowi. The Mayas call the horse tzimin from its fancied resemblance to the tapir.

[LeSellers]

Great find.

I believe the horse-tapir, sword-obsidian club, etc., arguments have always been sound, even if they were unproven. There are so many linguistically normalities (sound shifts, transfer of meanings, and so on) as languages move from one form to another (English is a Germanic language with a Latin vocabulary) that the concept underlying them is fundamentally sound.

I am relying on hear-say, but when the Plains Indians saw and got the horse, they called it a dog ("Sacred Dog").

Lehi

Edited October 5, 2011 by LeSellers

[Zakuska]

Not Heresay at all...

[cinepro]

Great find.

I believe the horse-tapir, sword-obsidian club, etc., arguments have always been sound, even if they were unproven. There are so many linguistically normalities (sound shifts, transfer of meanings, and so on) as languages move from one form to another (English is a Germanic language with a Latin vocabulary) that the concept underlying them is fundamentally sound.

I am relying on hear-say, but when the Plains Indians saw and got the horse, they called it a dog ("Sacred Dog").

Lehi

Although it should be pointed out that every example I've seen of "loan shifting" includes a modifier on the word. As you say, the plains Indians didn't call it a "dog", they called it a "sacred dog". If it were a dog, they presumably would have called it a "dog".

If Nephi had called it a "new horse" or "short horse" or "wild horse" or "jungle horse" or "ear horse" or "fluffy horse", then it might make more sense. After all, in the same verse he is able to distinguish between cows and oxen, and wild goats and regular goats.

And all the other arguments against it still apply as well.

[Verum]

I don't think anyone would argue that the horse reference could be used synonymously on observation of similar animals such as a tapir; however, the context that the word was used in many instances in the BOM referred to a domesticated animal used for transportation and/or battle. The horse/tapir interpretations in this case just does not logically fit.

Again, I would rather hold out hope for further discovery of domesticated horses in the New World, or for better acceptance of mistranslation then to accept the horse / tapir premise.

[Olavarria]

'ajtzo' n, (male) turkey; guajolote (macho)

'ajtzo', n. tom turkey; Truthalm (sic; Truthohn). Sapper 1907:450 <ajtzo A>

'ajtzo', n. peacock; pavo (real). Starr 1902:93 <aj-zo>

'ajtzo', n. turkey (male); guajolote. Becerra 1935:262 <Aktsó>

'ajtzo', n. turkey; guajolote. MVS 71

'ajtzo', n. (male) turkey; pavo (macho). MS

b'el vtr, to carry; acarrear

b'ejlan, vtr der. to carry, cart; acarrear. LF 1892:47 <Belg> 'acarrear'

b'ejlonib, n. wagon, cart; carreta. LF 1892:47 <Bejlonib> 'carreta'

b'el. vtr. to carry; acarrear. Becerra 1935:252 <Beel, belj, F>

b'el, vtr. to align things; ponerlos en línea. MSD

b'ejlojib', n. cart; carreta. ACG. Cf. Becerra 1935:256 <Bejlonib, F>

Chitam n, pig; cerdo

chitam, n. pig; cerdo. LF 1892:47 <Chitám> 'cerdo'

chitam, n. pig; cerdo. Stoll 1938:58 <chitián>

chitam, n. pig; Schwein. Sapper 1907:450 <chityam A T>

chitam, n. hog; puerco. Starr 1902: 95 <tschi tám>

chitam, n. pig; cerdo. Becerra 1935:256 <Chitiam, F>

chitam, n. pig (peccary); puerco. Becerra 1935:271 <Chitiam>

chitam, n. pig; puerco, coche, marrano (jabalí). MVS 11

mate' chitam, n phr. wild pig; Wildschwein. Sapper 1907:450 <mate chityam A, matichtyam T>

From /mal te'el/ 'inside the forest'

mate' chitam, n phr. peccary (wild pig); jabalí. Becerra 1935:264 <Muk-chitiam, matié-chitiam>

Dicotyles labiatus

mate' chitam, n phr. wild pig; puerco montés. Becerra 1935:271 <Maltik-chitiam, matiel-chitam>

muk' chitam, n phr < Tzeltal 'big peccary, jabalí grande', Becerra 1935:264 <Muk-chitam>.

Otherwise unattested

.

A Historical Dictionary of Chol Maya

Edited October 5, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[LeSellers]

Although it should be pointed out that every example I've seen of "loan shifting" includes a modifier on the word. As you say, the plains Indians didn't call it a "dog", they called it a "sacred dog". If it were a dog, they presumably would have called it a "dog".

I give you "guitar", a word that has undergone a very odd transformation (but still normal). To describe what we used to call a guitar, we must modify it to "acoustic guitar" to distinguish it from a modern guitar ("electric guitar", in the old tongue). "Corn" was, a few centuries ago, the word for "seed of a grass or grain". It now means "maize" in USmerica, but not in England. We still employ it in a few of its old uses (a peppercorn, or a callous on the foot), but, by and large, "corn" is "maize".

"Rubber" comes from its ability to "rub out" mistakes. In French "rubber" ("caoutchouc") mean virtually anything made of rubber: a hose, a pair of rain boots, and needs no modifier (except context). The older French word "chaire" became "chaize" because of an faddist affectation in the early XIX (the upper class changed all words ending in /r/ to end in /z/). It is the only word to have retained the alteration. Such slang usage is common and has been since Ugh called "fir" "pir".

What happens in a language as it adapts to the needs of its speakers is hard to predict, but it tends to follow definite rules (obvious in hindsight).

Lehi

[Zakuska]

kuchílyo ~ kuchilu n < Spanish cuchillo , knife; cuchillo

kuchílyo, n. knife; cuchillo. LF 1892:46 <Cuchillo, Lo mismo>

kuchilyu, n. knife; cuchillo. Starr 1902: 86 <cuchillu>

kuchiluj, n. knife; cuchillo. MVS 1175

These forms suggest the term was borrowed early with the /ly/ pronunciation of <ll>, then lost the /y/.

nawaxax n < Spanish navajas , pocket knife; navaja

nawaxax, n. knife; navaja. Starr 1902: 92 <navaschasch>

nawaxax, n. pocket knife; navaja. MVS 1184, 1175 (note)

'ajate' ? n, bee, wasp; abeja, avispa

säk 'ajate', nphr. bee, wasp; abeja. Becerra 1935:252 <suk-ajaté, F> /säk 'ajate'/.

Otherwise unattested. Perhaps *'ajaw te', 'lord of the trees'.

säk k'ajk, n phr. steel for striking sparks with flint; eslabón (de sacar fuego). Becerra 1935:261

<Suk-kajk, tsijó-kajk> /säk k'ajk, tz'ij-o'-k'ajk/ 'white fire, fire-striker'

tzuk' vtr, ignite a fire; encender fuego

tzuk', vtr. to start (a fire); prender (fuego). MVS 368

tzuk' k'ujtz, vtr phr. to light tobacco; encender tabaco. Becerra 1935:260 <Sebé, tsujk-kuts>

tzuk' k'ajk, n phr. steel for striking sparks with flint; eslabón (de sacar fuego). Becerra 1935:261

<Suk-kajk, tsijó-kajk> /tzuk' k'ajk/ lit., 'lights fire'; perhaps /tz'ij-o'-k'ajk/ 'rajador de fuego'

tzujk'el, vtr pas. to be lit; encender. Becerra 1935:260 <Gokukaj, sujkel>

chäk adj, red; rojo

chächäk tak'in, n phr. copper; cobre. LF 1892:45 <Chuchuktiakin> 'cobre'

chächäk b'ajlum, n phr. (mountain) lion; león. LF 1892:47 <Chuchucbajlum> 'león'

chächäk, adj red. red; colorado. MVS 620

chächäk lukum, n phr. earthworm; lombriz de tierra. MVS 112

chächäk sip, n phr. tick; garrapata. MSD

chächäk t'unul bä me', n phr. deer (prob. white-tailed deer); venado (prob. venado grande). MSD

chächäk tz'ijn, n phr. type of manioc; yuca ceiba (cáscara gruesa, más fácil de pelar). MSD

chächäk tz'unun, n phr. red-throated hummingbird; gorrión pecho rojo. MSD

sebáda n < Spanish cebada , barley; cebada

sebáda, n. barley; cebada. LF 1892:46 <Cebada, Lo mismo>

kaxlan n < Spanish castellano , Ladino (non-Indian); ladino

kaxlan, n. non-Indian; ladino. Becerra 1935:265 <Kashlán>

kaxlan, n. male, non-indian; ladino. MVS 953

kaxlan 'ixim, n phr. wheat; trigo. LF 1892:46 <Caxlan ixim> 'frio en genero' (sic)

kaxlan 'ixim yajkub'il, n phr. mashed wheat; trigo majado.

LF 1892:46 <Caxlan ixim Yajcubil> 'trigo escojido'

kaxlan 'ixim, n phr. wheat; trigo. Becerra 1935:276 <Kashlán-ishim, F>

kaxlan waj, n phr. bread; pan. LF 1892:47 <Caxlan guaj> 'pan'

kaxlan waj, n phr. bread; pan. Starr 1902: 93 <kaschlan-huaj>

kaxlan waj, n phr. bread; pan de trigo. Becerra 1935:269 <Kashlán-guá; kashlán-guaj, F>

kaxlan waj, n phr. bread; pan. MVS 321

kaxlan ch'umak', n phr. passion-flower; granadilla.

Becerra 1935:262 <Kashlán-chun-ak> Passiflora ligularis (Pasifloráceas)

Edited October 5, 2011 by Zakuska

[BCSpace]

I still think it's laughable. Sorry, but just because the Mayans called horses by the same name doesn't mean that's what JS (who probably didn't know what a tapir was) saw or translated.

[cinepro]

What happens in a language as it adapts to the needs of its speakers is hard to predict, but it tends to follow definite rules (obvious in hindsight).

Lehi

That leads to my other point: if the word Nephi used to describe a new world animal as "horse" was actually being applied to a tapir, then that word would have changed meaning, and by the time it is being used in Alma 500 years later, it no longer means "horse".

So while it may explain why we see the English word "horse" in 2 Nephi, it doesn't explain why we see the English word "horse" in Alma.

[J Green]

Although it should be pointed out that every example I've seen of "loan shifting" includes a modifier on the word. As you say, the plains Indians didn't call it a "dog", they called it a "sacred dog". If it were a dog, they presumably would have called it a "dog".

You need to get out and see more, Cinepro. There are just as many instances of loan shifting without the qualifier. Calling a horse simply a deer, or a buffalo simply a cow. African tribes calling a cow simply a buffalo. Etc. Pedro's example demonstrates that the Mayans apparently called a horse the same word as they used for a tapir without a qualifier.

[Questing Beast]

Horse-Tapir Laughable?

It is to me....

[J Green]

That leads to my other point: if the word Nephi used to describe a new world animal as "horse" was actually being applied to a tapir, then that word would have changed meaning, and by the time it is being used in Alma 500 years later, it no longer means "horse".

So while it may explain why we see the English word "horse" in 2 Nephi, it doesn't explain why we see the English word "horse" in Alma.

I don't follow this logic. Do you know that the words in the target language on the plates were the same? Do you know that the language used on the plates was the same as the common language? If they are not the same, do you have any linguistic data that point to a word once borrowed retaining that singular meaning over centuries without its orginal meaning being carried along as part of the polysemous nature of language? Do you have evidence that tells us for certain that disparate authors (and editors) centuries apart would use the same semantic expansion techniques? Etc. Etc. Etc.

[Hamba Tuhan]

That leads to my other point: if the word Nephi used to describe a new world animal as "horse" was actually being applied to a tapir, then that word would have changed meaning, and by the time it is being used in Alma 500 years later, it no longer means "horse".

So while it may explain why we see the English word "horse" in 2 Nephi, it doesn't explain why we see the English word "horse" in Alma.

You seem to misunderstand the basic concept of loan-shifting, Cinepro. Here's an explanation I've now posted on this forum at least three times:

'One might indeed argue that the term 'loan-shift' is in itself imprecise, as it tends to suggest a wholesale change in semantic reference, whereas what normally happens in a loan-shift is not that a word moves from one meaning to another, but that it acquires a new range of meaning while retaining the old' (Philip Burton, 'Assessing Latin--Gothic Interaction,' in Bilingualism in Ancient Society, ed. by J.N. Adams et al. Oxford Univ. Press, 2002, emphasis added).

Edited October 6, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

You need to get out and see more, Cinepro. There are just as many instances of loan shifting without the qualifier.

Indeed. I work in sixteenth-century and early seventeenth-century texts (predominantly Portuguese but also Spanish, Italian, and Dutch), and loan-shifts without any kind of qualifier would make up at least half of those I encounter.

[cinepro]

I don't follow this logic. Do you know that the words in the target language on the plates were the same? Do you know that the language used on the plates was the same as the common language? If they are not the same, do you have any linguistic data that point to a word once borrowed retaining that singular meaning over centuries without its orginal meaning being carried along as part of the polysemous nature of language? Do you have evidence that tells us for certain that disparate authors (and editors) centuries apart would use the same semantic expansion techniques? Etc. Etc. Etc.

If there were no horses in the New World at that time, and they were referring to tapirs when they said "horse", then the word didn't mean "horse" anymore.

In other words, suppose these marks on the plates were used:

to refer to this creature:

What is the process of translation (via a divine translator) that would render these marks as "horse"? What would make Joseph Smith say "horse" for those characters?

Edited October 6, 2011 by cinepro

[Hamba Tuhan]

If there were no horses in the New World at that time, and they were referring to tapirs when they said "horse", then the word didn't mean "horse" anymore.

Nonsense. The word would have continued to refer to equus when, for example, one read from copies of the brass plates, quoted prophecies of Isaiah, or related scriptural stories which may have contained common verbal formulae such as 'horses and chariots.' That's precisely what Burton meant when he wrote that a loan-shift 'acquires a new range of meaning while retaining the old.' This process is accentuated when those who migrate and then find themselves in a cultural contact zone possess and maintain a religious or other foundational text from their original context.

I'm personally not advocating for the horse-tapir loan-shift, but, as a historian who works in literature filled with loan-shifts, I feel obliged to point out that it's not in any way 'laughable.'

Edited October 6, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[J Green]

I'm with Hamba on this one, Cinepro. This is simply nonsense. Do you have any linguistic data or theory to back this up? Language is polysemous, and as semantic expansions occur, the original meaning is almost always retained, which is why you see multiple meanings for words in any dictionary. For example, the original English word "heaven" had a reference to the expanse above the earth. As Christianity was introduced, loan-shifting occured to use the word also in reference to the dwelling place of deity. Did this mean that the original meaning was not valid or not used again? It's still the number one definition in Websters. As in the case with the "qualifier" argument, you have tossed out these kind of observations for years without any apparent knowledge of the discipline.

[Verum]

Alma 20:6 "..Behold he is feeding thy horses. Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused his servants should make ready his horses and chariots"

3 Nephi 3:22 .."and they had taken their horses, and thier chariots, and their cattle...."

3 Nephi 21:14: "I will cut off thy horses out of midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots"

Can you really replace the word horse with tapir in the scriptures above? Doing so in my mind is laughable. These are clearly domesticated creatures used for transportation and / battle.

[J Green]

What is the process of translation (via a divine translator) that would render these marks as "horse"? What would make Joseph Smith say "horse" for those characters?

At least here you're starting to ask the right questions, Cinepro. And by asking these questions you should realize that there are a number of factors involved in the problem set, which complicates any attempt to throw out a glib pronouncement without an in-depth discussion of the factors. Do we know that the marks on the plates were the same in both instances? How do we know that? If, for the sake of argument, we agree that they were the same marks, we can proceed to the next issue, which is authorial use. There are a number of types of semantic expansions, to include loan-shifting, code-switching, and many others. And these types of choices change over time within a culture. Do we know that the same type of borrowing was prevalent in the Nephite culture hundreds of years after Nephi by different authors and editors? How do we know that? If we grant that some how it was (against most linguistic theory), then we can proceed to the next set of questions: How did Joseph's translation process work? Was a prepared translation spoon fed to him through the seer stone as some have argued or did JS have control over the words he chose? If, for the sake of argument, we agree that JS had some amount of control, then we can proceed to meaning component equivalency. There are ranges of translation equivalency on a spectrum from overly literal (tight) to overly literary (loose). Did JS always translate with the same equivalency? I.e., did he follow the target language structure in some areas more than others? Can you know that the translation process used in both instances was the same? How do you know that? And so on.

Have you dealt with any of these factors in your assessment? Do you understand their relevance to the problem set?

[Verum]

I much prefer the theory below...holding out hope for more evidence of real horses.

The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation."

The lack of archaeological evidence for the Hunnic horse is rather significant in terms of references to horses in the Book of Mormon. During the two centuries of their dominance, the Huns must have possessed hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare, notwithstanding the abundance of horses during the Hunnic empire, how can we expect abundant archaeological evidence for pre-Columbian horses in the New World, especially given the scant and comparatively conservative references to horses by Book of Mormon writers?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129

[Verum]

I much prefer the theory below...holding out hope for more evidence of real horses.

The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation."

The lack of archaeological evidence for the Hunnic horse is rather significant in terms of references to horses in the Book of Mormon. During the two centuries of their dominance, the Huns must have possessed hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare, notwithstanding the abundance of horses during the Hunnic empire, how can we expect abundant archaeological evidence for pre-Columbian horses in the New World, especially given the scant and comparatively conservative references to horses by Book of Mormon writers?

http://maxwellinstit...scripts/?id=129

[Olavarria]

I still think it's laughable. Sorry, but just because the Mayans called horses by the same name doesn't mean that's what JS (who probably didn't know what a tapir was) saw or translated.

If Nephi and Co. called the tapir a horse and called them such on the plates, why should JS render it as something else?

I use the example of Yucatecs calling the horse a tapir to show that:

1)the animals are analogous to each other,

2)the exact same kind of loan shifting apologists have argued for has happened, in Mesoamerica.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[Zakuska]

If Nephi and Co. called the tapir a horse and called them such on the plates, why should JS render it as something else?

I whole heartedly agree. What people seem to be asking for here is Joseph being dictated too by the stone in the hat and the being on the other end of the stone making corrections being an all knowing source.

[Zakuska]

Can you really replace the word horse with tapir in the scriptures above? Doing so in my mind is laughable. These are clearly domesticated creatures used for transportation and / battle.

Battle Beasts #58 Torrential Tapir

Battle Tapir

http://www.splashdamage.com/tapirwars

Edited October 6, 2011 by Zakuska