Horse-Tapir Laughable?

[Zakuska]

The Spaniards them selves did loan shifting with American Beasts... As well as the Aztecs doing the Same with Old world beasts.

The Spaniards likewise expanded the definition of some of their animal categories. They called the native tapir an "A S S,"²² and some of the Maya called the European horses and donkeys "tapirs" because, at least according to one observer, they looked so similar.²³

22 Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting…, 293-294.

23 Roper, 134.

Animals and plants of the ancient Maya: a guide By Victoria Schlesinger

TSIMIN means in the Mayan both "horse" and "tapir"; the word dates to at least Conquest times.

http://books.google....20tapir&f=false

Pedro is exactly right and those who laugh at the Horse/Tapir loan shifting idea have egg all over their faces!

Edited October 6, 2011 by Zakuska

[Verum]

Battle Beasts #58 Torrential Tapir

Battle Tapir

http://www.splashdamage.com/tapirwars

Awesome! I am totally sold now. Nice!

[Zakuska]

Maya history and religion

By John Eric Sidney Thompson

Even the horse which so amazed the natives at first contact was received into Maya religion. Cortes' horse, left behind disabled by a splinter in its hoof, was presented with bouquets of flowers, a common form of religious offering, and was given birds (probably turkeys) and meat either as food or in sacrifice. A stone statue of a horse was set up in one of the temples and became one of the principal gods under the name Tzimin Chac, "Tapir Lightning" (the Maya named the horse "tapir," the animal closest to it in appearance; "lightning," because the Maya at first thought the horse was discharging lightning when the man on its back fired his gun). The thigh bone of the original horse seems to have been preserved in another temple.

http://books.google....20tapir&f=false

So we have documented "Loan Shifting" going on here. Yet people still laugh.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Zakuska

[Jaybear]

Maya history and religion

By John Eric Sidney Thompson

http://books.google....20tapir&f=false

So we have documented "Loan Shifting" going on here. Yet people still laugh.

To be fair, the only people that laugh, are those that have seen a picture of a tapir.

[Zakuska]

To be fair, the only people that laugh, are those that have seen a picture of a tapir.

And yet the natives who didn't have the benefit of a dictionary or photographs, chose the word 'Tapir' for the horse when they encountered it.

[Zakuska]

Awesome! I am totally sold now. Nice!

Comic releif.

[cinepro]

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

As far as I can tell, we at least know this much about the translation process:

- Joseph Smith did not read or speak Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian, so the actual "translation" into English had to be done by another entity. LDS theorize a supernatural entity which would presumably have fewer limitations than mortal translators when it comes to knowledge of the languages and authorial intent.

- The translation process was able to convey non-English words, and words that neither Joseph nor anyone else living in 1829 knew such as "curelom" and "cumom". In other words, what Joseph Smith did or didn't know wasn't a factor in the process. The word "horse" could have been any other word in English, any other human language, or any other word not then known to mankind.

- "Loan Shifting" seems to be used to describe an unknown-animal using a known animal's name. If the supernatural entity doing the translation was fluent in Nephite Hebrew and Reformed Egyptian, and the animals referred to as "horse" in the Book of Mormon were actually tapirs, then the translator would have been loan-shifting backwards. Their "reference" point for these animals would be new world tapirs, and the loan shifting would be to call old world horses "tapirs", since they know what a tapir is but don't know what a "horse" is.

In learning English, the supernatural translator may have learned what a "horse" is, but they would recognize that it isn't a tapir and that what they are talking about in the Book of Mormon isn't a "horse". They would not be limited by whether or not Nephi knew what a tapir was in 590 BC, or what a Mayan dictionary says.

In other words, they would know much more about the language and the animals than we do right now as we discuss this in 2011. So unless anyone in this thread claims that, even knowing this, they would still translate the word used by the Nephites to describe a tapir as "horse", it just doesn't work.

[Jesterss]

Maya history and religion

By John Eric Sidney Thompson

http://books.google....20tapir&f=false

So we have documented "Loan Shifting" going on here. Yet people still laugh.

but there is a descriptor involved.. not just tzimin..

[Zakuska]

but there is a descriptor involved.. not just tzimin..

And why was the descriptor added according to the author?

"lightning," because the Maya at first thought the horse was discharging lightning when the man on its back fired his gun

Edited October 6, 2011 by Zakuska

[cinepro]

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

Since we have a Prophet today, consider this theoretical possible.

Suppose for the 200th anniversary of the printing of the Book of Mormon, the Church decides to prepare a new edition. In doing so, President Bednar goes to the Lord in prayer in the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple, and seeks clarity on certain matters regarding geography and vocabulary.

He inquires about the word "horse", and in response, the Lord shows him in a vision the animal that is being referred to:

You are on the publication committee that is preparing the revised edition of the book, and the question is asked what to do with this new knowledge. Do you change the word in response to the revelation? Leave the word "horse" but add a footnote? Or just leave it as it is and argue that the word "horse" can also mean "tapir" so people shouldn't be confused?

[Jesterss]

And why was the descriptor added according to the author?

"lightning," because the Maya at first thought the horse was discharging lightning when the man on its back fired his gun

Or was it because the horses were actually fast runners? Either way, they knew they weren't the same animal, just that tzimin was the only name they had so they called it something similar to their known knowledge. Yet gave it a descriptor..

[Uncertain]

I am also unconvinced concerning the horse-tapir loan shifting. Here is a thread where this was discussed in some detail.

http://www.mormondia...es/page__st__20

Here is the argument in a nutshell:

I have absolutely no problem with the idea loan-shifting occurred. I agree Nephi may have been using the same word to refer to two different animals. However I don't see why this means it is correct to always translate that word to refer to only one of those animals. For example suppose JS instead of always translating whatever word the Nephi used as "horse" instead he always translated that word as "tapir" which is the other meaning of the word. So the quotations from Isaiah would look something like this.

2 Nephi 15:28

"Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and their tapir's’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind, their roaring like a lion."

This is straightforwardly a translation mistake. Always translating a word with two meanings into only one of its meanings regardless of context is a translation error. Even if Nephi expanded the word "horse" to also mean "tapir" always translating the word as horse when in some contexts it does not mean horse but tapir is a translation mistake. A correct translation of a word with two meanings is to translate that word into either of it's meanings based on context. This problem is compounded when we look hundreds of years after Nephi and still see mentions of horses. At this point in Nephite society the word horse may still mean both the old world horse and the new world tapir but the dominant meaning would have to be tapir. No Nephite would be at all familiar with the old world horse they would only know them from scriptural references. On the other hand they would be intimately familiar with tapirs the fact the Nephite word for tapir could also refer to an obscure old world animal would likely have been a minor footnote. To argue JS was correct to translate the Nephite word for tapir as horse hundreds of years after Nephi when the dominate meaning of the word was tapir is a very strained argument.

In brief if a Nephite wrote:

I was walking in the woods and found a tapir.

It would be incorrect to translate this sentence as:

I was walking in the woods and found a horse.

Sure the Nephite word for tapir might be the same as their word for horse so what? The second sentence is still an incorrect translation. Just like translating the word horse in 2 Nephi 15:28 as tapir is an incorrect translation even if the Nephite word for horse was the same as their word for tapir.

Now you could argue the loan shifting was done by JS. He did not know the English term tapir so used the closest term he knew. Now this still means he made a translation mistake caused by his lack of familiarity with the English language but it does solve the anachronistic use of horse. The problem with this argument is there are many words in the BOM JS could not possibly have known. For example many of the proper names. In addition we have an example in the BOM of animals JS was not familiar with and the names of those animals were provided to him by the translation process i.e.(cureloms and cumons). Therefore we have ample empirical evidence from the text the words used in translation were not restricted to words JS knew even with regards to animals. Therefore arguing the incorrect translation occurred because JS did not know the English word tapir is not compelling. Arguing without evidence that JS translation of "horse" is somehow different than all the other times JS was provided with a word he did not know is blatant special pleading.

Also Verum has raised another good point. Even if we assumed the word horse really refers to some other animal and not a horse which is a dubious assumption as I argue above. We know from how the word horse is used in the Book of Mormon that it refers to some animal that appears to be domesticated i.e.(Ammon feeds the kings horses and prepares them for travel among many other similar statements ). The list of domesticated animals in Mesoamerica is very small (turkeys, dogs) and does not include tapirs. How the word horse is used in the BOM simply does not fit very well with a wild animal like tapirs. The horse-tapir connection is very strained however you look at it.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited October 6, 2011 by Uncertain

[Zakuska]

- "Loan Shifting" seems to be used to describe an unknown-animal using a known animal's name. If the supernatural entity doing the translation was fluent in Nephite Hebrew and Reformed Egyptian, and the animals referred to as "horse" in the Book of Mormon were actually tapirs, then the translator would have been loan-shifting backwards. Their "reference" point for these animals would be new world tapirs, and the loan shifting would be to call old world horses "tapirs", since they know what a tapir is but don't know what a "horse" is.

Non-sequitor.

Since a single Nephite (Mayan) word... Tzimin can mean either thing the super natural entity would have to look back through time and descipher which is being refered to. At best its an ambiguity.

[Uncertain]

Non-sequitor.

Since a single Nephite (Mayan) word... Tzimin can mean either thing the super natural entity would have to look back through time and descipher which is being refered to. At best its an ambiguity.

This is incorrect, the supernatural entity has no need to go back in time. He only has to be aware of the context in which the word was used. Exactly how we tell what meaning is being referred to when a word has multiple possible meanings. It is not difficult at all tell me when I write "I used my mouse to click on the internet link" do you need to go back in time to know what meaning of the word "mouse" I was using? As mentioned ad nauseum in the thread I linked to in my post #37 it would be trivially easy to tell based on context what the correct translation of "Tzimin" would be. If it is in the context of the old work it is a horse if it is in the new world it is a tapir. See even I could provide the correct translation of "Tzimin" and I do not have the benefit of being supernatural.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited October 6, 2011 by Uncertain

[cinepro]

Since a single Nephite (Mayan) word... Tzimin can mean either thing the super natural entity would have to look back through time and descipher which is being refered to. At best its an ambiguity.

How would that be any different than what we're doing in this thread?

If the Book of Mormon is, in fact, referring to tapirs as "horses", then the merely mortal apologists, using only the flimsiest reasoning and knowledge about ancient new world animals, have been able to "look back in time" and figure it out.

Why then would it be unreasonable to assume that a supernatural entity might have the resources to determine the correct indication of an ambiguous word? Even if we assume that God wouldn't grant access to his infinite knowledge to the translator, we would also have to assume that the spirit itself didn't have enough knowledge to distinguish between the two animals.

Mortal translators can get fooled by ambiguous words and loan shifting our or ignorance, but it's bush-league apologetics to assume God's appointed supernatural translator would have the same blind spots.

[Jesterss]

Non-sequitor.

Since a single Nephite (Mayan) word... Tzimin can mean either thing the super natural entity would have to look back through time and descipher which is being refered to. At best its an ambiguity.

You yourself already quoted a documented article that they indeed used the name Tzimin Chac when they came across an actual Horse... So they recognized it as obviously something different than the Tapir, which the first sentence of your quote even says...

[Zakuska]

This is incorrect, the supernatural entity has no need to go back in time. He only has to be aware of the context in which the word was used. Exactly how we tell what meaning is being referred to when a word has multiple possible meanings. It is not difficult at all tell me when I write "I used my mouse to click on the internet link" do you need to go back in time to know what meaning of the word "mouse" I was using? As mentioned ad nauseum in the thread I linked to in my post #37 it would be trivially easy to tell based on context what the correct translation of "Tzimin" would be. If it is in the context of the old work it is a horse if it is in the new world it is a tapir. See even I could provide the correct translation of "Tzimin" and I do not have the benefit of being supernatural.

Best,

Uncertain

You must not have read my final post in that thread.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55472-why-did-greeks-call-hippopotamuses-horses/page__view__findpost__p__1209043177

[Verum]

Comic releif.

Of course, I was giving you props!

I still don't understand something here...

I can buy into the loan shifting argument, but, it just doesn't seem compatible unless you are also claiming that rode tapirs or that Ammon was actually feeding and tending a domesticated tapir instead of horse. It really just seems highly unlikely.

[Zakuska]

Of course, I was giving you props!

I still don't understand something here...

I can buy into the loan shifting argument, but, it just doesn't seem compatible unless you are also claiming that rode tapirs or that Ammon was actually feeding and tending a domesticated tapir instead of horse. It really just seems highly unlikely.

We do have pictures of Mayans riding pigs.

Another example of loan shifting:

The ambiguous word grain, which can mean quite a few very different things.

But which specific seed is being spoken of when this is used?

Edited October 6, 2011 by Zakuska

[Uncertain]

You must not have read my final post in that thread.

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209043177

Hi Zakuska,

I did indeed read the last post in the thread. I did not see how this post contained any new argument I had not already addressed so did not respond. I totally agree the word or glyph on the plates may very well also mean horse as well as tapir so what? This has already been amply addressed. The word very well could have meant horse it also means tapir it is up to the translator to provide the correct meaning. Again simply because a word has two meanings does not make it correct to always translate that word into only one of its meanings. Frankly this is trivially and obviously correct. I have already pointed out many times no time travel is necessary to get the correct translation of the Nephite word for tapir. The correct translation is easily available based on context if the word is used in an old world context it is a horse if it is used in a new world context it is a tapir. I really think you need to address this point if you persist in trying to state some sort of time travel would be necessary to determine the correct translation of the Nephite word for tapir.

Best,

Uncertain

[Senator]

Why would the Nephites have been messing around with tapirs(horse) when there were also asses to be used?

[shalamabobbi]

Why would the Nephites have been messing around with tapirs(horse) when there were also asses to be used?

The asses(llamas) tend to spit at you, and it's most unpleasant..

[Senator]

The asses(llamas) tend to spit at you, and it's most unpleasant..

Oh, crikey!!

[Zakuska]

Why would the Nephites have been messing around with tapirs(horse) when there were also asses to be used?

Good question.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Zakuska

[Senator]

tapirs = horses

llamas = asses

Come on folks, this apologetic needs to be put to rest.

I'm totally content with the "give it time" answer.