Horse-Tapir Laughable?

[Uncertain]

Hi J Green,

Sorry for the delay in response I had another engagement last night and did not have the time to engage in fights on the internet .

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.

Again the text on the plate would have also have been the Nephite word for tapir. So your question could easily be rephrased as how did JS know to translate the word as horse when the plates actually said tapir? I suppose JS would have known the meaning of the term the same way he produced the rest of the BOM. There is a tendency here to consider the Nephite word horse/tapir to be an exception it is not. As a translator yourself you are well aware there are many, many words which have multiple meanings. When translating such words the correct meaning is deducted from the context. The Nephite word for tapir having multiple meanings is not an exception but the norm. JS in his translation process would have to deal with similar cases on a regular basis.

If your question is specifically what context could be used to determine what is the correct meaning of the Nephite word tapir/horse. The meaning is determined the same way a Nephite reading the BOM would have done by context. Keep in mind the BOM was written in part for other Nephites to read and as such it was almost certainly written such that it would be immediately obvious to a fluent Nephite speaker what animal is being referenced. Similar to how we as English speakers can immediately tell what meaning of mouse is being used. Given the meaning of the BOM must have been provided by a fluent Nephite speaker presumably there would be no difficulty in determining what animal is being referenced tapir or horse. I already provided one trivial way to determine what meaning to correctly translate the Nephite word tapir/horse into. That is if the word is being used in an old world context it is a horse if it is being used in an new world context it is a tapir. I really don't see why it would be all that difficult to correctly translate this word.

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?

From a faithful perspective I always viewed this as because there was no equivalent English word for the animals represented by curelom and cumom. Hence it would be impossible to translate them into English. This of course is not the case with tapirs there is a perfectly acceptable English word for tapirs.

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.

How about this example. The American English term elk is actually an old world term for what we could call a moose. This is in fact an excellent example of loan shifting when early European explorers first encounted elk they were not familiar with the animal but presumably thought it looked like a moose so they called it the European term for moose. The name stuck and now in American English we use this term to refer to elk and not to moose. Tell me when translating an American English document say Jack Londons "White Fang" into a foreign language do you believe it would in general be a correct translation to translate the American English usage as "elk" as "moose" when the foreign language has two distinct words for the two different animals? Furthermore incorrectly translating the animals in the BOM is a rather serious mistake. How many educated readers first pick up the BOM and quickly reject it's claim to being an authentic ancient record because the BOM mentions anachronistic animals? Michael Coe immediately springs to mind. Incorrectly translating BOM animals does in fact have quite serious consequences.

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?

Good question, personally I think this this view is actually more reasonable. To me it does make more sense to use the native term for tapir instead of calling tapirs by the old world term for horse. This of course does not solve the translation issue in fact it makes it worse.

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?

What the BOM makes abundantly clear is that the animal referred to as a horse was an animal cared for and managed by Nephites for hundreds of years. This does not fit very well with a wild animal like tapirs.I don't find references to to tapirs pulling plows or as pets, compelling for the same reason pictures of zebras pulling carts and trained lions in circuses are not compelling evidence zebras and lions were domesticated in Africa round about 600 b.c. Do you have any evidence in the right time and place that Mayans domesticated tapirs? We do have evidence for animals being domesticated by Mayans namely turkeys and dogs. If tapirs were also domesticated by Mayans why the lack of evidence when we can easily identify animals which were domesticated by the Mayans?

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

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

No the text actually said tapir and tapir is what the Nephites were referring to when they wrote on the plates and JS incorrectly translated the word as horse.

[altersteve]

No the text actually said tapir and tapir is what the Nephites were referring to when they wrote on the plates and JS incorrectly translated the word as horse.

Prove it. Since you know what the plates "actually" say, you obviously have them in your possession and you can obviously understand the language on them, right?

[Uncertain]

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.

HI Pedro,

If the supernatural entity was truly concerned about preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He would be very concerned about correctly translating the animals in the BOM. How many educated readers first pick up the BOM and quickly reject it's claim to being an authentic ancient record that teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ because the BOM mentions anachronistic animals? Michael Coe immediately springs to mind. Incorrectly translating BOM animals does in fact have quite serious consequences when it comes to accepting its message.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Prove it. Since you know what the plates "actually" say, you obviously have them in your possession and you can obviously understand the language on them, right?

????????

This is the logical conclusion of the apologetic loan shifting argument. If you assume the loan shifting argument is correct then the word the Nephites used on the plates would have been the word they used to refer to tapirs. It also would have been the word they used to refer to horses. It might help if you read the rest of the thread to see where this statement is coming from.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

duplicate

Edited October 7, 2011 by Uncertain

[Uncertain]

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.

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 am not sure how many times I must repeat myself before this point is addressed. Again I have already provided a trivial means to determine how to correctly translate the Nephite word for horse/tapir 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. With regards to the Marco Polo example I addressed this in the thread I linked in my first post look at post #49.

[altersteve]

If you assume the loan shifting argument is correct then the word the Nephites used on the plates would have been the word they used to refer to tapirs. It also would have been the word they used to refer to horses.

Exactly. That's why Joseph Smith translated it as "horse," because that's what the Spirit told him the word meant since he probably had no idea what a "tapir" was.

Thanks for pointing that out.

And, of course, there is still the possibility that the Nephites actually had actual horses. You can't prove they didn't.

Edited October 7, 2011 by altersteve

[Uncertain]

Exactly. That's why Joseph Smith translated it as "horse," because that's what the Spirit told him the word meant since he probably had no idea what a "tapir" was.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Please read the rest of the thread this has been discussed. If the "Spirit" told him it meant horse when the Nephites meant tapir and wrote their word for tapir than the "Spirit" provided an incorrect translation. Whether or not JS knew what a tapir was is entirely unimportant JS did not know many of the words used in the BOM these words were provided for him as part of the translation process. See my post #37 in this thread second paragraph from the bottom where I addressed this argument.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited October 7, 2011 by Uncertain

[altersteve]

Or, once again, there may have actually been horses in pre-Columbian America and modern science simply doesn't know it yet.

[Jesterss]

Or, once again, there may have actually been horses in pre-Columbian America and modern science simply doesn't know it yet.

Why then would the locals of mexico/mayan's praise the horses of the spanish conquistadors as Gods? They clearly hadn't seen these type of animals.. Even Zakuska's quote made it clear that these were foreign animals...

[Uncertain]

Or, once again, there may have actually been horses in pre-Columbian America and modern science simply doesn't know it yet.

Could be, I am not addressing this particular apologetic argument in this thread. I am only arguing the loan-shifting apologetic to explain the presence of horses in the BOM is weak.

Best,

Uncertain

[Zakuska]

Why then would the locals of mexico/mayan's praise the horses of the spanish conquistadors as Gods? They clearly hadn't seen these type of animals.. Even Zakuska's quote made it clear that these were foreign animals...

The Aztecs considered all kinds of Animals as Gods. Not just Corteze's Horse.

[altersteve]

Why then would the locals of mexico/mayan's praise the horses of the spanish conquistadors as Gods? They clearly hadn't seen these type of animals.. Even Zakuska's quote made it clear that these were foreign animals...

At the time of the Spanish conquest, there were no horses, but there were possibly horses before then.

[Jesterss]

The Aztecs considered all kinds of Animals as Gods. Not just Corteze's Horse.

The last sentence wasn't meant to go with the previous. They did. So the point of exalting them as God's isn't the best example, but the idea that they were even described in your previous quote as being amazed at first contact (new). Post #28, Speaks volumes to the notion that they weren't existing creatures there, and were given a descriptor in their names as being tzimin chac instead of just tzimin...

[Jesterss]

At the time of the Spanish conquest, there were no horses, but there were possibly horses before then.

Read post #28 from Zakuska, then apply the concept of "amazed at first contact" with the horses to the notion that they may have known horses before. It wouldn't be first contact. It would be a reintroduction of horses..-and they would of had a name, rather than coming up with tzimin chac at that time...

Edited October 7, 2011 by Jesterss

[William Schryver]

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.

How can it be a translation mistake when the passage in question is from the words of Isaiah, an old world prophet?

Bear in mind, I am persuaded that there were, in fact, horses in pre-Columbian America, especially in pre-Columbian North America, although they were evidently not numerous and certainly not a significant component of Nephite life. That said, you seem to be entirely missing the point of the posts of Hamba Tuhan and JGreen. Loan-shifting doesn't replace meaning, it expands it. Pedro's citations in the OP prove beyond any dispute that Mesoamericans used the word for "tapir" to apply to Spanish horses.

Edited October 7, 2011 by William Schryver

[Jesterss]

Bear in mind, I am persuaded that there were, in fact, horses in pre-Columbian America, especially in pre-Columbian North America, although they were evidently not numerous and certainly not a significant component of Nephite life. That said, you seem to be entirely missing the point of the posts of Hamba Tuan and JGreen. Loan-shifting doesn't replace meaning, it expands it. Pedro's citations in the OP prove beyond any dispute that Mesoamericans used the word for "tapir" to apply to Spanish horses.

I don't know the exact dates of BOM history on the Nephites or Mr. Mormon (not sure the correct conversational way to address him) was dated sometime in the AD time era correct? Therefore, it would logically make sense that horses did not exist for these men. What could have caused such an extinction to horses in this time period without there being any remains? American Indians were introduced to horses by the spaniards as well. They didn't know anything about them. I think the most compelling evidence for the non existence of said animals (horses), is the fact that all these cultures were amazed by them and the spaniards who introduced them... If they were of prior existence, due to their ability to survive so well with the introduction during the spanish conquest, wouldn't it logically make sense that horses would have continued to thrive in mexico or america had they existed? It just logically does not make sense to believe in the usage of horses by anyone around this time frame...

I'll give you the possibility of 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, but not after..

Edit: regarding your last sentence, Zakuska, made a quote directed by a mayan anthropologist that insists that the naming convention for introduced horses was tzimin chac, not just tzimin... therefore, recognized as a different animal.. Maybe of same structure (hoofed feet and four legged), but different, and was the first contact with them...

Edited October 7, 2011 by Jesterss

[Uncertain]

How can it be a translation mistake when the passage in question is from the words of Isaiah, an old world prophet?

I should have provided more explanation of what I was going for with that example. I am well aware the loan-shifting argument is that Nephi expanded the meaning of the word "horse" to also refer to a new world animal a "tapir". I have absolutely no problem with this concept I think it is entirely reasonable. What I have a problem with is after this shift in meaning takes place translating the Nephite word for tapir/horse only and always as only one of its meanings. I was using the Isaiah example of why this is demonstrable incorrect. The Nephite word used in the Isaiah quotation could mean two things horse or tapir. The correct translation into English of this phrase is to use the "horse" meaning of the Nephite word used. It would be incorrect to translate the Isaiah quotation into English using the "tapir" meaning of the word even though in some contexts the word the Nephites used to refer to horses can also refer to tapirs. In a nutshell I don't have a problem with the concept of loan-shifting the issue is when the Nephites used their word for tapir/horse sometimes they meant horse as in the Isaiah quotation and sometime they meant tapir. On those occasions they meant tapir it would be incorrect to translate that word as "horse". Just like it is incorrect to translate the Isaiah quotation as "tapir" even though the Nephite word for horse could also mean tapir. If you continue reading past my first post I provide considerable additional argument for my position and clarify exactly what the problem is as I see it.

Bear in mind, I am persuaded that there were, in fact, horses in pre-Columbian America, especially in pre-Columbian North America, although they were evidently not numerous and certainly not a significant component of Nephite life. That said, you seem to be entirely missing the point of the posts of Hamba Tuan and JGreen. Loan-shifting doesn't replace meaning, it expands it. Pedro's citations in the OP prove beyond any dispute that Mesoamericans used the word for "tapir" to apply to Spanish horses.

I totally agree loan-shifting may well have taken place I have no problem with this my beef is with how the word with newly expanded meanings should be translated. And the implications this has for the loan-shifting argument in total.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited October 7, 2011 by Uncertain

[california boy]

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.

Has anyone answered your question? And since the Americas only domesticated animal was the lama, what were the cattle called by the Nephites? You gotta make up other animals not just for the horse but for all of the domesticated animals listed in the BOM. Is anyone here claiming that tapirs were harnested to pull chariots??? Or do chariots mean something else as well.

Does this really look like an animal that anyone would be hitching up to a chariot??? It looks more like a pig than a horse. And just how fast would a tapir pull a chariot faster than you could walk and could you direct these animals? Come on. Loan shifting is not the problem. Logic is the problem unless you can somehow pretend that these animals once pulled chariots.

If you feel the BOM is the word of God, then do you really need a tapir to be a horse? If you do, then I think you gotta twist the meaning of the verses where horse appears.

Edited October 7, 2011 by california boy

[William Schryver]

I don't know the exact dates of BOM history on the Nephites or Mr. Mormon (not sure the correct conversational way to address him) was dated sometime in the AD time era correct? Therefore, it would logically make sense that horses did not exist for these men. What could have caused such an extinction to horses in this time period without there being any remains? American Indians were introduced to horses by the spaniards as well. They didn't know anything about them. I think the most compelling evidence for the non existence of said animals (horses), is the fact that all these cultures were amazed by them and the spaniards who introduced them... If they were of prior existence, due to their ability to survive so well with the introduction during the spanish conquest, wouldn't it logically make sense that horses would have continued to thrive in mexico or america had they existed? It just logically does not make sense to believe in the usage of horses by anyone around this time frame...

I'll give you the possibility of 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, but not after..

There are some among the Nez Perce that are adamant that they possessed horses before the Spanish arrived. They had a well-developed unique breed of horse when Lewis and Clark encountered them. The Nez Perce Appaloosas and others of the Pinto breeds are believed, by some, to descend from a mixture of Spanish horses and pre-Spanish indigenous herds.

There are many instances of horse fossils being discovered that appear to disprove the long-believed axiom that there were no horses in America before the Spanish arrived. Here is a fairly recent example I turned up:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_3510b187-f256-5b91-875e-b45c8865f14a.html

I am also personally familiar with rock art in southern Utah that portrays people with and on horses.

I am personally persuaded that many of these finds are being rejected on the basis of dogma alone, and that eventually it will become accepted that there were surviving specimens of equus from ancient times to the present day.

So, in summary, I do not accept the dogma that there were no horses in the Americas prior to Columbus and after 10,000 BCE.

[William Schryver]

This rock art dates to Nephite times:

Edited October 7, 2011 by William Schryver

[seriously honestly]

Pedro's example demonstrates that the Mayans apparently called a horse the same word as they used for a tapir without a qualifier.

This only being after the conquest, though, correct?

[shalamabobbi]

There are some among the Nez Perce that are adamant that they possessed horses before the Spanish arrived. They had a well-developed unique breed of horse when Lewis and Clark encountered them. The Nez Perce Appaloosas and others of the Pinto breeds are believed, by some, to descend from a mixture of Spanish horses and pre-Spanish indigenous herds.

There are many instances of horse fossils being discovered that appear to disprove the long-believed axiom that there were no horses in America before the Spanish arrived. Here is a fairly recent example I turned up:

http://www.nctimes.c...5c8865f14a.html

I am also personally familiar with rock art in southern Utah that portrays people with and on horses.

I am personally persuaded that many of these finds are being rejected on the basis of dogma alone, and that eventually it will become accepted that there were surviving specimens of equus from ancient times to the present day.

So, in summary, I do not accept the dogma that there were no horses in the Americas prior to Columbus and after 10,000 BCE.

Zakuska may be interested in passing this one along to Tarski..

[William Schryver]

Has anyone answered your question? And since the Americas only domesticated animal was the lama, what were the cattle called by the Nephites? You gotta make up other animals not just for the horse but for all of the domesticated animals listed in the BOM. Is anyone here claiming that tapirs were harnested to pull chariots??? Or do chariots mean something else as well.

Does this really look like an animal that anyone would be hitching up to a chariot??? It looks more like a pig than a horse. And just how fast would a tapir pull a chariot faster than you could walk and could you direct these animals? Come on. Loan shifting is not the problem. Logic is the problem unless you can somehow pretend that these animals once pulled chariots.

If you feel the BOM is the word of God, then do you really need a tapir to be a horse? If you do, then I think you gotta twist the meaning of the verses where horse appears.

I don't believe the intent of Pedro's opening post was to argue that when the Book of Mormon says "horse" it really means "tapir." At least that's not how I interpreted it. He's merely demonstrating that the argument of loan-shifting words has merit, and he gave an indisputable example.

By the way, Pedro, I want to publicly commend you and acknowledge the fact that your written English is greatly improved since you first started posting here. Indeed, I am very impressed by how much it has improved.