Horse-Tapir Laughable?

[J Green]

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.

From my perspective, these assumptions are similar to your earlier observation that the only cases of loan-shifting are qualifed in some way with addtional words. There are other options available for the translation process, including a scenario wherein God helped JS understand what was on the plates (even though he didn't know the language himself), after which JS made his own choices about how to articulate that meaning. (And there are other options as well.) You're once again making simplistic assumptions that don't engage a large part of the discipline--in this case a good part of LDS scholarship from Stephen Ricks to Brant Gardner. For example, if JS didn't have any choice in the process, why does the process for translation as laid out in the D&C instruct the translator to reason it out in his mind before asking God? If JS didn't have any choice in the process why did he feel comfortable editing the words of several succeeding manuscripts? And so on.

[Zakuska]

I want me a Battle llama!

[J Green]

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

Uncertain,

Part of your argument should answer the thrust of the rest of it. By demonstrating that curelom and cumom were transfered straight accross by JS, you've shown that the general method was to retain what the original text said. So if Nephi used the word 'horse', then JS would have transferred it straight accross without changing it. End of story. Your argument that he should have changed it rests on several assumptions that I don't necessarily share--that either JS or God should have known that it was really a tapir and have changed it during the translation; and if they didn't, it constitutes a translation error. I don't agree with these assumptions and don't think you have made a good case for your argument. I doubt JS was shown a vision of the animals as he was translating the words, so he wouldn't have known anything other than the word "horse" on the plates. God certainly would have known, but if he cared about this as much as you do, you could make the case that he would have provided the real names for cureloms and cumoms as well--or at least their closest relatives in the unfortunate and unlikely scenario that they are extinct, undiscovered, and unnamed. But since he didn't, he appears to be just fine with transferring the text as written by the original authors, just as he appears just fine with the revelation as articulated by JS in D&C, and just fine with the words of priesthood blessings, patriarchal blessings, conference talks, and other pronouncements (when inspired) that are given in all the glory and spectacular human limitaitons of each individual involved. Strange indeed.

Regards

[Uncertain]

Uncertain,

Part of your argument should answer the thrust of the rest of it. By demonstrating that curelom and cumom were transfered straight accross by JS, you've shown that the general method was to retain what the original text said. So if Nephi used the word 'horse', then JS would have transferred it straight accross without changing it. End of story. Your argument that he should have changed it rests on several assumptions that I don't necessarily share--that either JS or God should have known that it was really a tapir and have changed it during the translation; and if they didn't, it constitutes a translation error. I don't agree with these assumptions and don't think you have made a good case for your argument. I doubt JS was shown a vision of the animals as he was translating the words, so he wouldn't have known anything other than the word "horse" on the plates. God certainly would have known, but if he cared about this as much as you do, you could make the case that he would have provided the real names for cureloms and cumoms as well--or at least their closest relatives in the unfortunate and unlikely scenario that they are extinct, undiscovered, and unnamed. But since he didn't, he appears to be just fine with transferring the text as written by the original authors, just as he appears just fine with the revelation as articulated by JS in D&C, and just fine with the words of priesthood blessings, patriarchal blessings, conference talks, and other pronouncements (when inspired) that are given in all the glory and spectacular human limitaitons of each individual involved. Strange indeed.

Regards

Hi J Green,

I appreciate your input. Clearly I did not spell out my argument in a clear enough fashion. I understand your position which is that the Nephite word for tapir is also the Nephite word for horse. When a word has two meanings it is certainly incorrect to always translate that word into only one of its meanings. Here is an example to illustrate my point:

In English the word "mouse" can refer to a small furry rodent or an electronic device used with computers. Suppose I am translating from English into a foreign language that has two different words for the different meanings of mouse. I am translating the sentence "I used my mouse to click on the CNN link" into this foreign language. The correct translation into the foreign language would be the word in that language that means a electronic device used with computers. An incorrect translation would be to use the word in the foreign language that means a small furry rodent. Yes in English the same word "mouse" can mean both things and we use context to determine the correct meaning. But if the foreign language has two different words to refer to the two different meanings of mouse then using the word that means small foreign rodent to translate the example English sentence would be a translation error.

Similarly the Nephites may have had a single word that means two different animals "horse" and "tapir" but English has two distinct words for each animal. When translating Nephite into English a correct English translation would use either "horse" or "tapir" depending on what animal the Nephites meant when they used the word tapir/horse. The translator would know which animal is being referenced by context the same way we English speakers know what meaning of "mouse" is being used. If the Nephite word is being used in the context of the new world it is clearly a tapir if it is used in the context of the old world it is clearly referring to a horse.

So my argument is that the word on the plates does in fact mean tapir. Yes it could also mean horse but so what? As I point out above simply because a word has multiple meanings in no way makes it correct to translate that word into only one of its meanings regardless of context. On the plates would have been the Nephite word for tapir by your own logic above the meaning should have been transferred straight across to JS and the correct translation should have been provided which is tapir. Translating the Nephite word for tapir as horse when the Nephites were in fact referring to tapirs is clearly and straightforwardly a translation error. Also keep in mind as I argue above the dominant meaning of the word for tapir after hundreds of years in the new world must have been tapir. The Nephites would not have been at all familiar with the old world horse only knowing it from scripture. Arguing it is correct to translate the Nephite word for tapir as horse when the dominant meaning of the word is tapir is not a compelling argument.

Also your response does not address the fact how a horse is described in the BOM does not fit at all well with a wild animal like a tapir.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited October 6, 2011 by Uncertain

[J Green]

Hi, Uncertain.

Fairness in advertising: I'm not sure what theory I buy on the horse issue. I'm not a tapir apologist, but I do find the theory plausible. And I think I understand your position. A few questions:

If the text on the plates actually said "horse" but really meant "tapir," give me a scenario of how JS would know this so he could change it to "tapir" in the translation per your complaint. How did JS know what the animal really was? Take me to that point and give me the picture.

As a follow-up, using the same translation process as above, why doesn't JS also know the real scientific or popular equivalents for curelom and cumom?

Further, IIRC, the the tapir is actually part of the horse family (along with the rhinocerous and a few others). Do you really think that classifying various members of a family of animals with the name of one of the specific members of that family is really comparable to not specifying when a mouse is an animal as opposed to when it's a computer peripheral? I find that analogy to be a stretch.

Last question: Why would Nephi call a tapir a horse (if this is fact what happened)? Let me throw out a few assumptions here from a believer's stand point. Let's suppose that there are "others" already here when the Nephites arrive. And let's assume some level of integration with these those others. Can we assume that the indigenous people have a name for the tapir already? Putting aside the question of what language the Nephites use colloquially versus what they use on the plates, If Nephi is writing his record almost 30 years after they arrive, why would he not use the word for the tapir that the natives have used for centuries previously? In other words, why haven't the Nephites simply borrowed the word that the natives use? If the great tapir theory has any merit, why would they retain their own word "horse" over thirty years later?

As for your last point about use of tapirs in the BoM, I confess that I haven't had much interest in that angle. My academic training and professional experience has been in the field of translation, so the loan-shift angle piques my curiosity. And even though I've stayed at a Holiday Inn Expres, I'm not an expert on the history of the mesoamerican tapir. I entered the conversation to object to the simplistic loan-shift argumenst Cinepro has repeated for years. But if you're asking, then I have read the FAIR Wiki article and found the accounts documented there to be fairly reasonable. E.g., Charles Darwin reporting tapir domestication in the Americas, the mention of their limited use as a beast of burden on small scale. Etc. Aside from the chariot reference, which Sorenson deals with in his book, I don't see much that jars with the very limited references to use of horses in the BoM (aside from eating them, which conforms to the tapir theory). Is there any thing in the Wiki article you dispute?

Regards

[Zakuska]

So my argument is that the word on the plates does in fact mean tapir. Yes it could also mean horse but so what?

But so what? Thats the crux of the whole matter. Without a description of what the animal looks like theres no way to tell by context or anything else. So what ever the correct English word was... Joseph had no way of knowing. He could have chose anyone and still make a correct translation. And the only way for the divine interpreter to know would be to look through time to know and make the correct choice. Since the original word is ambiguous.

Heres an example when Marco Polo went to China and saw the Rhinocerous for the first time he called it a 'Unicorn'. It wasn't until he described the animal that the world was able to indentify what he was talking about was a Rhino rather than a mythical creature of English legend.

Unicorn

The unicorn, tamable only by a virgin woman, was well established in medieval lore by the time Marco Polo described them as "scarcely smaller than elephants. They have the hair of a buffalo and feet like an elephant's. They have a single large black horn in the middle of the forehead... They have a head like a wild boar's… They spend their time by preference wallowing in mud and slime. They are very ugly brutes to look at. They are not at all such as we describe them when we relate that they let themselves be captured by virgins, but clean contrary to our notions." It is clear that Marco Polo was describing a rhinoceros. In German, since the 16th century, Einhorn ("one-horn") has become a descriptor of the various species of rhinoceros.

So when we translate Marco Polos writings are we supposed to correct him every time he references a Unicorn? Or are we supposed to leave the word that he originally wrote?

Edited October 6, 2011 by Zakuska

[Verum]

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.

Amen.

[Areabird]

So is the general consensus that the description of Joseph looking at the seer stone in the hat during the translation process unfounded? I didn't realize that this description of the translation process (words appearing, the words read back to Joseph, and then the words changing when they had been recorded correctly) had been rejected. If Joseph was writing what he saw on the stone (it would be English, correct?) how could the name for a tapir have been Horse? Why wasn't it the native name, say Cunon ?

[J Green]

Hi, Areabird.

The general scenario you describe is still the consensus. A possible exception is the bit about the words changing when they had been recorded correctly--there is good evidence in the extant portions of the original manuscript for this idea when it comes to names of individuals but not for the rest of the dictation process.

Of course, the real question is what this all means in terms of Joseph's participation in the process, if any. My sense is that there is no consensus at this point. But there has been some good conversation on this subject over the years, and the latest voice is Brant Gardner's as documented in his recent book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon.

[Zakuska]

So is the general consensus that the description of Joseph looking at the seer stone in the hat during the translation process unfounded? I didn't realize that this description of the translation process (words appearing, the words read back to Joseph, and then the words changing when they had been recorded correctly) had been rejected. If Joseph was writing what he saw on the stone (it would be English, correct?) how could the name for a tapir have been Horse? Why wasn't it the native name, say Cunon ?

Thats the problem we are talking about. If the word Tzimin for example appeard on the plates which can mean either horse or tapir how does that get rendered into what it really means?

Either Joseph or the divine dictator has to make a choice, or look back in time to know what it really ment. There isnt a one to one translation process goin on here.

After studying the various methods of the process, different methods being used at different times I don't agree with the divine dictation Joseph Smith the Human steniograph model.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[Stargazer]

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

My own Indian ancestors, the Maidu of Northern California, called all the bovine and equine cattle of the white man after their word for "deer": Kumin.

[cinepro]

So when we translate Marco Polos writings are we supposed to correct him every time he references a Unicorn? Or are we supposed to leave the word that he originally wrote?

I don't speak Italian or Latin, so if I were translating Marco Polo's writings into English by the gift and power of God, I would have to use whatever words I was given. Hopefully if Marco Polo were talking about a rhinoceros, that's what the spirit would say.

[blackstrap]

The Inuit(eskimos) have many different words for "snow" because life in their environment requires precision in this area.So too, I suggest would it be very important for the people of Mesoamerica to be precise in the naming of animals because they would be surrounded by many which were deadly as well as those that were useful. Similarly the flora.

The word for the animal "snake" where I live ,can only refer to a couple of different varieties,whereas in Guatemala you had better know exactly which snake is being spoken of. To have one word which means both tapir and horse suggests they didn't know what a horse was.If the Lehite recorder did know what a horse was,then he used the word for horse,and JS translated it as such.

[Zakuska]

I don't speak Italian or Latin, so if I were translating Marco Polo's writings into English by the gift and power of God, I would have to use whatever words I was given. Hopefully if Marco Polo were talking about a rhinoceros, that's what the spirit would say.

So then you subscribe to the Joseph Smith as a Divine typewriter and therefore any errors are layed at the feet of God.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[LeSellers]

The Inuit(eskimos) have many different words for "snow" because life in their environment requires precision in this area

Sorry, this is a fallacious myth.

The "Eskimo words for snow" claim is a widespread misconception alleging that Eskimos have an unusually large number of words for snow. In fact, the Eskimo-Aleut languages have about the same number of distinct word roots referring to snow as English does. In contrast, the European Sami People, an indigenous circumpolar group, do have hundreds of words for snow.

Languages in the Inuit/Innu language group add suffixes to words to express the same concepts expressed in English and many other languages by means of compound words, phrases, and even entire sentences. One can create a practically unlimited number of new words in the Eskimoan languages on any topic, not just snow, and these same concepts can be expressed in other languages using combinations of words. It is therefore not relevant or meaningful to compare the number of words between languages that create words in different ways due to different grammatical structures. Most linguists today consider it a myth that Inuit have an unusually large number of words for snow.

Lehi

[krose]

So then you subscribe to the Joseph Smith as a Divine typewriter and therefore any errors are layed at the feet of God.

Since he didn't write himself, it would be more like a medium or oracle -- a term that indicates a conduit of some kind. A person who cannot read or understand the source language of a document cannot possibly be anything else.

We can't translate words and symbols we can't read. If words that I do understand somehow appear before me, and I repeat them, I am not translating. If I see a scene unfold in my mind, and I describe it in my own words, I am still not translating.

So with the horses mentioned in the book, there are only two choices:

1 - Some supernatural entity gave Smith the word "horse," and he repeated it.

2 - Some supernatural entity showed him a scene that included an animal, and he decided to call it a horse.

[Olavarria]

Call me crazy, but I think it's very possible that the "supernatural entity" doesn't care one way or the other how the flaura or fauna are rendered in English.

It seems to me that the "supernatural entity" is more concerned about preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[J Green]

So with the horses mentioned in the book, there are only two choices:

These are not the only two choices and entirely misses the thrust of current LDS scholarship on this issue. False dichotomy anyone?

[Jesterss]

These are not the only two choices and entirely misses the thrust of current LDS scholarship on this issue. False dichotomy anyone?

Provide other choices so others may ponder your reasoning..

[altersteve]

Call me crazy, but I think it's very possible that the "supernatural entity" doesn't care one way or the other how the flaura or fauna are rendered in English.

It seems to me that the "supernatural entity" is more concerned about preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And this is what critics don't understand. The Book of Mormon is the "most correct book" because it preaches the gospel in its fullness, not because it's 100% historically or linguistically accurate.

[J Green]

Sure, the one many of us have been advocating all along: JS does not know the language on the plates but is assisted to understand the meaning of the characters through the gift and power of God. He then can choose the words he uses to articulate what he is given to understand. (This is the process laid out in the D&C relative to translation of the BoM.) In this scenario, the text actually says horse and so he understands the meaning component of horse and translates it as such.

Regards

[krose]

Call me crazy, but I think it's very possible that the "supernatural entity" doesn't care one way or the other how the flaura or fauna are rendered in English.

It seems to me that the "supernatural entity" is more concerned about preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Are you saying that Smith was free to make up details as long as the main message was intact?

Because care or don't care, the words had to come from somewhere, ether given to him or made up by him.

[Jesterss]

Sure, the one many of us have been advocating all along: JS does not know the language on the plates but is assisted to understand the meaning of the characters through the gift and power of God.

Supernatural entity - understood to be gift and power of God.

He then can choose the words he uses to articulate what he is given to understand. (This is the process laid out in the D&C relative to translation of the BoM.)

So he was given/given to understand what the words on the plate were.

In this scenario, the text actually says horse and so he understands the meaning component of horse and translates it as such.

The word given to him was Horse.

Sounds a lot like Choice 1 given by Krose above.

So with the horses mentioned in the book, there are only two choices:

1 - Some supernatural entity gave Smith the word "horse," and he repeated it.

2 - Some supernatural entity showed him a scene that included an animal, and he decided to call it a horse.

Some supernatural entity = power and gift of God

The literal word was Horse and it was given to JS. He then used the word Horse = repeated it, since it was given to him.

I'm not sure where the disagreeance with this is?

Sounds like you two agreed to me really... Now it's just trying to understand what the choice reflects in Kroses statement.. not that there is a conflict in the choices or options of what happened, that much seems clear..

[krose]

Sure, the one many of us have been advocating all along: JS does not know the language on the plates but is assisted to understand the meaning of the characters through the gift and power of God. He then can choose the words he uses to articulate what he is given to understand. (This is the process laid out in the D&C relative to translation of the BoM.) In this scenario, the text actually says horse and so he understands the meaning component of horse and translates it as such.

I don't see how that's any different from my two options. If I am "given to understand" the meaning of a foreign character, I would either get the English word in my mind or a visual representation of what it represents. Otherwise, what do you mean by "meaning component"?

Edit to add:

Obviously you are referring to times when Smith would have been working from the actual plates, rather than the head-in-hat process related by witnesses.

Edited October 7, 2011 by krose

[Zakuska]

Since he didn't write himself, it would be more like a medium or oracle -- a term that indicates a conduit of some kind. A person who cannot read or understand the source language of a document cannot possibly be anything else.

We can't translate words and symbols we can't read. If words that I do understand somehow appear before me, and I repeat them, I am not translating. If I see a scene unfold in my mind, and I describe it in my own words, I am still not translating.

So with the horses mentioned in the book, there are only two choices:

1 - Some supernatural entity gave Smith the word "horse," and he repeated it.

2 - Some supernatural entity showed him a scene that included an animal, and he decided to call it a horse.

I think people focus too much on only one of the processes of translation. ie Symbols appear, English Words appearing. Joseph speaks. Scribe writes. Declaration of 'written'. Next symbol.

Anyone who has seen the most recent 'Joseph Smith Plates of Gold' Movie knows the translation process varied over its life time and was more dynamic than that (Yes I know Hollywood gets things wrong).

But by the time Oliver Cowdery was scribbing for Joseph. The plates remained in the bag and Joseph simply dictated, from Memory.

With Emma. Joseph starts out using the breast plate and Urim and Thumim, very cumber somely. With Martin Harris the sheet was hung between them and Joseph looked at Glyphs and dictated.

I would suppose by that time, Joseph had picked up on what each glyph ment and how it would be translated. So he could sit up nights translate and memorize one metal leaf at a time while noone was around and he didn't have to worry about someone seeing the plates. Then dictate it the next day.