Questions About Js'S Translation Procedure Of The Bom.

[volgadon]

@nealr:

That's it? You come here to post articles that aren't helpful and a book that might (though you don't say how, specifically), tell me what kind of intentions I might have by asking, and tell me you will answer me if I really want to but you won't.

How helpful.

He pointed you towards the most extensive work of modern scholarship dealing with the translation process. That is directly relevant. Even if I cannot afford to buy something right now (or find it in the library), I am still grateful for good bibliographical references. It is not as if Neal made vague reference to, say, Steiner's After Babel (a classic on translation in general), as useful as tthat book is.

[ERayR]

He pointed you towards the most extensive work of modern scholarship dealing with the translation process. That is directly relevant. Even if I cannot afford to buy something right now (or find it in the library), I am still grateful for good bibliographical references. It is not as if Neal made vague reference to, say, Steiner's After Babel (a classic on translation in general), as useful as tthat book is.

Alvino likes his answers concise and complete in a 30 second sound bite

[Alvino]

So, Alvino -

from my perspective the issue starts on some level before we can talk about tight or loose translations. What does the translation process entail? Do we get a translation of Mormon's text that follows what Mormon writes (or does his intention matter)? That is, if Mormon makes a mistake in writing, does the translation process somehow correct the mistake, and if it does, what is the standard to which it corrects it? Or, does the translation simply translate what Mormon writes, mistakes and all?

What happens if Mormon, in redacting the various sources he uses, comes across a word he doesn't know, and instead of replacing it with something that he is familiar with, he simply inserts that unknown word into his text (transliterates it himself to keep our terminology in this thread consistent). How does our pattern of translation respond to this? Do we anticipate a translation that can overcome the problem (and if we do, does this mean that neither what Mormon wrote, nor his intentions in writing really contribute to the translation that we have)?

Ben M.

First of all, thanks for the thoughtful response.

Though I really wish I saw how this was relevant, I fail to see it. Even if the process of translation corrects Mormon's mistakes, that still leaves the question of why JS didn't just receive the name of "sheum" in English unanswered. Whether what appears in front of him inside his hat is the somewhat corrected version (taking Mormon's intentions into account) or what is actually written in the text, mistakes included, is neither here nor there to whether Joseph translated the BoM by being given word for word and letter for letter (which is what causes the problems mentioned). He could have been receiving word for word the corrected version or word for word what the text said, both take you to the aforementioned problem. Likewise, if JS was getting in his understanding Mormon's intentions or what the text itself said (not word for word), both still fail to account for words like "sheum" and proper names unique to the BoM.

Perhaps you were getting to another point with this?

Edited February 17, 2013 by Alvino

[bu11fr0g]

Other parts that I forgot that also have to be included:

The translation of the Book of Abraham

The translation of the Bible, including restoration of large passages

Others being permitted but unable to translate

JS translations are not translations in an academic sense. The best description is probably that they are JS interpretation of what God would like him to write with subsequent approval of the translation by God. Sometimes very clear, sometimes not so clear, but God tends to work like that.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alvino writes:

Though I really wish I saw how this was relevant, I fail to see it. Even if the process of translation corrects Mormon's mistakes, that still leaves the question of why JS didn't just receive the name of "sheum" in English unanswered. Whether what appears in front of him inside his hat is the somewhat corrected version (taking Mormon's intentions into account) or what is actually written in the text, mistakes included, is neither here nor there to whether Joseph translated the BoM by being given word for word and letter for letter (which is what causes the problems mentioned). He could have been receiving word for word the corrected version or word for word what the text said, both take you to the aforementioned problem. Likewise, if JS was getting in his understanding Mormon's intentions or what the text itself said (not word for word), both still fail to account for words like "sheum" and proper names unique to the BoM.

It's actually quite relevant.

Translation as a process can be looked at in a number of ways. On one end of the broad spectrum of translation we might have this idea of a word for word sort of dectionary/lexical translation - the sort of thing we might engage in if we had no familiarity with the language and were forced into a laborious task of looking up every single word, figuring outthe verb conjugations, and so on. Thus we end up with some sort of translation. (Something like, say, feeding text into a stripped down version of google translate). Such a process regularly ends up with artifacts - with transliterated but not translated words (when they aren't in the lexicon or dictionary).

On the other end of the spectrum we have a sort of translation by idea. We ingest what comes in, figure out what the author was trying to say - recognizing idioms being used in the text, looking for rhetorical strategies and rhetorical devices, and come out of the translation process with something akin to what the writer was trying to convey to his audience as opposed to a string of lexical and dictionary based words. Two very different processes, sometimes resulting in very similar translations, but certainly not always.

Then we have this idea with the Book of Mormon. The author of the gold plates (at least where it covers the account of Zeniff, in which the word 'sheum' is found) is Mormon, writing (at least as the text alleges) around 600 years after the Zeniff account is recorded. I don't know how familiar you are with 600 year old books, but I imagine, I could find a few 600 year old English books that you would have a very hard time reading. So, let's assume that Mormon encounters the Zeniff text, and wants to include it in the gold plates. He has the word (only occurs just the once) in the context of other words he recognizes. So he includes it - because he has some idea of what it means by class, but has no idea of what it actually means.

What language is Zeniff's record in? If it's not in the reformed Egyptian, then Mormon has a choice of what to do with this unknown word. He could, of course, substitute something in reformed Egyptian for the word. That is, he could make a logical guess based on the context of the Zeniff document and put in something he knows to be wrong (but which won't, as far as he can tell, effectively change the meaning of the passage - after all, 'sheum' doesn't occur in some kind of significant context - it likely represents some kind of domesticated plant crop right along with the other unknown word 'neas'? Perhpas, since he is largely quoting from a historical record, he doesn't want to change the record substantially and so he includes it in the text as a transliteration of the original word that he saw when he read. So in effect, he hasn't translated the word into reformed Egyptian (because he couldn't) and simply included as a transliteration the word that he found (but didn't really read) in the Zeniff account. (Perhaps the word in the Zeniff account was itself an orthographic error - a typo so to speak - such that there wasn't any way to read it at all even).

Now, we have a problem. It doesn't ,matter which end of the spectrum we start with. On the one side, we have a word that has no entry in the dictionary or the lexicon. We can still guess some degree of detail about its meaning from the context - but we cannot translate it. On the other end of the spectrum we have a different problem. Mormon, for whatever reason, not only did not translate the word in creating his record, he intentionally chose not to translate the word. So to translate the word in any way would be to go against Mormon's intentions in writing the word in the way he did. So, the best response (and the one often favored by modern translators) would be to simply continue with Mormon's translation and leave the word untranslated but transliterated.

Now we come to the Book of Mormon. So we have this translation by Joseph Smith via God's power. What is it that we actually expect? And this is sort of where your question comes in. You wrote this specifically:

He could have been receiving word for word the corrected version or word for word what the text said, both take you to the aforementioned problem.

Despite what you noted to me, this isn't actually descriptive enough of the process you envision to answer the scenario I bring up. It doesn't matter if Joseph is receiving it "word for word" - because we have to discuss in some way what it means to have a translation. If Mormon didn't want to translate a word, and then didn't translate that word, should a translation of his translation then try to translate that word? Certainly it shouldn't if the translation follows Mormon's intentions (in those cases, there should be nothing but a transliteration - because that represents Mormon's intentions). And if we are doing a word-for-word sort of translation, a dictionary/lexical approach, and we come across a foreign word embedded in the text, should we always try to translate it? Historically, of course, we can find many, many known real world examples of this issue, and we can look at the range of attempts to deal with these problems - but ultimately, the answer in this case falls back on your undefined expectations of what the translation process does (as opposed to what it looks like).

At what point does God change the text in translation (to reflect, say, the intentions of the author of the account of Zeniff) so that it doesn't really resemble what Mormon wrote (going both against what Mormon actually wrote, and going against what Mormon intended when he wrote)? And can we really call this translation at this point? Wouldn't it much more likely represent God's view of what Mormon should have written?

Finally, it is this kind of approach that then directs believers to see Sheum as a transliteration - and to look for similarities to words in other languages that potentially or plausibly could explain this word in the context in which it is used. 'Sheum' gets some attention because there are such similarities that have been noted. 'Neas', not so much. It gets some additional attention because if it is a transliteration, it may give us some guesses about how the Mulekites and the Nephites interacted on a linguistic level (they of course had different languages when they met during the reign of Mosiah I - not too long before Zeniff heads into the wilderness). And then, of course, there is always the problem of lexical shifts (but that usually occurs where we know the word in translation but it doesn't always fit our expectation in the context).

What do you think God would have done in the translation process that is different from what we do have, and what is your justification for that difference? What difference would it make on the text and on our reading of it? And what do you think that the current translation (assuming it was done through the power of God) says about God's nature?

Ben McGuire

[CV75]

Was JS hearing the words in his head also?"

Variety is the spice of life. 1 Nephi 16:28 indicates that the quality of intelligence (in this case, revelation or translation) depends of the dilligence and heed we apply to the process. It seems that if Jospeh was studying it out in his mind (D&C 9:, he would also be applying various degrees and kinds of dilligence and heed to the various revelatory translation skills and processes, yeilding different types of translation (literal, transliteral, non-literal, etc.).

[ERayR]

In the thread Sheum: A New Lead, Olavarria mentioned that "sheum" may be a transliteration from a name that designates a grain in the BoM. When asked why JS wrote a transliteration, Olavarria responded that what "sheum" denoted was a grain not in JS's vocabulary. Since he didn't know how to call it, JS just gave it the original name.

Supposedly JS saw the translated words when he had his face in the hat so, where those words or terms limited to JS's vocabulary? That would be strange since "sheum" was not a word in his vocabulary to begin with, neither were proper names unique to the BoM.

If the words he received as the translations were not limited to his own vocabulary, why not be given through revelation the name in English of that grain in the first place? Perhaps no such name existed?

I also don't understand how he knew "sheum" was the transliteration in the first place given that it doesn't appear that he was looking at the original symbols while translating, but even if he did he must have heard the word pronounced to transliterate it.

For example, as I posted in the aforementioned thread, "Or you could say JS did know, at least while inspired, what certain symbols meant in the original language written in the plates. If you chose to say that please realize this does not explain why JS wrote "sheum" there in the first place. If %$%#$% is what's written and it was pronounced "agua" (though you don't know this unless you heard the term) in another ancient language and it means "water" in our own (and you know that %$%#$% means "water"), that doesn't explain why you would write "agua" in a translation. Was JS hearing the words in his head also?"

Isn't it nice that we can sit back 200 years after the fact and decide how it should have been and find fault because it doesn't fit our model. God, and Joseph, used what worked best for Joseph, whatever that was. If Joseph had thought the translation process would cause so much consternation he probably would have documented it more thoroughly. As it was he was just trying to get the Book of Mormon published the best way he could find while organizing a church, etc.

Edited February 17, 2013 by ERayR

[Alvino]

Then we have this idea with the Book of Mormon. The author of the gold plates (at least where it covers the account of Zeniff, in which the word 'sheum' is found) is Mormon, writing (at least as the text alleges) around 600 years after the Zeniff account is recorded. I don't know how familiar you are with 600 year old books, but I imagine, I could find a few 600 year old English books that you would have a very hard time reading. So, let's assume that Mormon encounters the Zeniff text, and wants to include it in the gold plates. He has the word (only occurs just the once) in the context of other words he recognizes. So he includes it - because he has some idea of what it means by class, but has no idea of what it actually means.

I'll just note here that even if Mormon didn't know what sheum was that doesn't mean JS couldn't have translated it. But let's go on.

What language is Zeniff's record in? If it's not in the reformed Egyptian, then Mormon has a choice of what to do with this unknown word. He could, of course, substitute something in reformed Egyptian for the word. That is, he could make a logical guess based on the context of the Zeniff document and put in something he knows to be wrong (but which won't, as far as he can tell, effectively change the meaning of the passage - after all, 'sheum' doesn't occur in some kind of significant context - it likely represents some kind of domesticated plant crop right along with the other unknown word 'neas'? Perhpas, since he is largely quoting from a historical record, he doesn't want to change the record substantially and so he includes it in the text as a transliteration of the original word that he saw when he read. So in effect, he hasn't translated the word into reformed Egyptian (because he couldn't) and simply included as a transliteration the word that he found (but didn't really read) in the Zeniff account. (Perhaps the word in the Zeniff account was itself an orthographic error - a typo so to speak - such that there wasn't any way to read it at all even).

I don't see how any of this could have stopped the power of God from revealing to JS what (we are assuming here) even Mormon didn't know, namely, what sheum was in either Mormon's or Smith's language (if there was such a word in JS's time).

Now, we have a problem. It doesn't ,matter which end of the spectrum we start with. On the one side, we have a word that has no entry in the dictionary or the lexicon.

On what lexicon? Mormon's? JS's? Even if both, you still haven't explained to me why this should have stopped God revealing in the translation of the BoM what sheum was in English independently of what Mormon knew or the vocabulary he had available for expressing "sheum", which was one of the original problems I posted in the OP, remember?. You could simply say there is (or was) no such word in English, though to say that is hardly satisfactory given that JS could certainly have provided more information about it even if no word existed. Plus, you can have both, translated and transliterated term. No need to exclude both even if in the main text you leave the untranslated.

We can still guess some degree of detail about its meaning from the context - but we cannot translate it.

I still don't see why JS couldn't have.

On the other end of the spectrum we have a different problem. Mormon, for whatever reason, not only did not translate the word in creating his record, he intentionally chose not to translate the word.

That in the main text you don't translate a word doesn't mean you can't do so in a footnote to give a better idea, even if not exact, of what the untranslated word means. But let's say in the scenario you present here Mormon would have chosen to not translate sheum because he didn't know what it was. Why couldn't JS know? Mormon would have transliterated it (or copied as it was) because he could do no better, not because his transliteration of "sheum" looked prettier. Why didn't JS translate it accurately and resorted to leaving it "sheum"?

So to translate the word in any way would be to go against Mormon's intentions in writing the word in the way he did.

You mean his intentions of him, Mormon, writing the word as he did, right? There is nothing about Mormon choosing to not translate but transliterate a word that means his intention is that no one afterwards translates it even if it meant being clearer. JS translating Mormon's first transliteration to English would have gone with Mormon's intention of producing an accurate document as close to the original writer's meaning.

So, the best response (and the one often favored by modern translators) would be to simply continue with Mormon's translation and leave the word untranslated but transliterated.

Now, this is just wrong. The best thing for a translator to do in a case like this is to write an English transliteration (notice JS would transliterate it again anyways after Mormon's first transliteration - we only have an English transliteration now - and that doesn't appear to you to be a problem as far as Mormon's original intention goes, does it?), and to write a footnote explaining the meaning of the transliterated term, closer English terms that give a more or less closer idea to what "sheum" meant, and the original written word in the original alphabet.

If Mormon didn't want to translate a word, and then didn't translate that word, should a translation of his translation then try to translate that word?

But nothing that's written in the BoM is Reformed Egyptian or whatever the plates were written on. Why respect Mormon's wishes so much that JS wouldn't translate Mormon's transliteration to the correct English word but JS would transliterate what Mormon wrote? (Let's say the original symbols in the gold plates for sheum were @#$#@) Why not go so far as to respect Mormon's wishes more and leave @#$#@ instead of the English transliteration we have today? Honestly, this is just not a good position to take at any level. It seems incredible that Mormon would have preferred having a transliteration of his transliterated (or copied) word no on knows what it is now in the English version of his plates, instead of having the correct English translation or a clear explanation of what sheum is, which is what we don't have.

Certainly it shouldn't if the translation follows Mormon's intentions (in those cases, there should be nothing but a transliteration - because that represents Mormon's intentions).

Mormon's intention was to have an English transliteration of his transliterated term? Probably not, but that's what we have. We do not have Mormon's writings so his transliteration is lost anyways. Plus, as I mentioned, what you think Mormon's intention was is unrealistic.

I do have to concede that if you were to have had a good case for why JS received "sheum" instead of the English translation, then that would have answered one of my concerns; post #24 was irrelevant, post #30 is not. As I think your reasons don't work, and I explained why, my concerns still stand, IMHO.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

Variety is the spice of life. 1 Nephi 16:28 indicates that the quality of intelligence (in this case, revelation or translation) depends of the dilligence and heed we apply to the process. It seems that if Jospeh was studying it out in his mind (D&C 9: , he would also be applying various degrees and kinds of dilligence and heed to the various revelatory translation skills and processes, yeilding different types of translation (literal, transliteral, non-literal, etc.).

You can say that, CV.

But I can't figure out for the life of me why bury his face in a hat to leave light out, but yet don't need anything for his ears to hear. Maybe he was hearing it only in his head as dictated by the power of God? But, couldn't he also see what he normally saw inside the hat only in his mind by the power of God, too?

You might not care but, you know how this looks to me? As uncomfortable attempts at making crass, awkward events seem a bit more spiritual and symmetric which reminds me of how I often felt when I participated in certain LDS activities.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Alvino

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alvino writes:

I'll just note here that even if Mormon didn't know what sheum was that doesn't mean JS couldn't have translated it. But let's go on.

Right. There could have been a "translation" (of some sort, although the definition starts to get a bit hazy here, right?). But, what you haven't tried to explain is why Joseph would need to. Translators as a whole don't always feel the need to correct errors in the text, or to make translations of terms that the original author doesn't translate. Proper names would an example of only one type. My name is Benjamin, which stems from a Hebrew word with an actual definition (apart from its use as a personal name). Should my text be translated, should the translator translate my name? I would hope not. But, there are other instances when translating terms doesn't occur because it does violence to a text. And that ultimately is the issue here. You seem to be fixated on this idea - but I haven't really seen you try and justify the sort of scenario you are presenting.

Why would Joseph have a need to translate 'Sheum' in some way?

I don't see how any of this could have stopped the power of God from revealing to JS what (we are assuming here) even Mormon didn't know, namely, what sheum was in either Mormon's or Smith's language (if there was such a word in JS's time).

But you haven't explained why it would be necessary or even better than what we have.

No matter what the process looks like, the process has to produce a text that we can read and understand. So, you are suggesting that God could do all sorts of things in terms of this translational process, but, we have to ask why God would? Is there a reason why we would expect God to translate texts in a way that the outcome would be substantially different than the outcomes of translation processes we normally engage in? And what is God's desire for the text that is the outcome? How are we supposed to read it and understand it? If we are not to understand it as a translation of the words and intentions of Mormon and Moroni (and others in the small plates section), then why wouldn't that be made perfectly clear to us. No matter how I look at your approach to the text, it onyl creates more potential for misunderstanding the text in a fundamental way than leaving a textual artifact untranslated does. Your suggestions seem to do more damage to the text than mine do.

You seem to be beating your head into a wall here. Why not start over and explain what you think the translation should have looked like, and why. Don't tell me what you think God could have done - we can go on endlessly with that one - tell me what you think Go would have done, and why. Without that sort of foundation, your concerns seem to be more of a search for something to be critical of rather than an attempt to understand the issue or try to describe the problem to me.

I think that my approach (which is to treat the text substantially like any other translation) is quite reasonable, myself. Simply telling me that it isn't reasonable, but not really explaining why it isn't reasonable isn't going to make much headway in a discussion like this. And ultimately, we have to recognize that you are making this mountain out of a bit of text that has absolutely no impact on the theological message of the text ... so again, what do you think is missing in this approach that should have been there, and why would God have seen your approach as better or even necessary?

Perhaps you could answer three simple questions - 1) is God more of a word-for-word kind of translator, or is He more of an idea-for-idea kind of translator. 2) Do you think that God was actually involved at all in the process? 3) Do you believe in God?

Ben M.

[cdowis]

. Even if the process of translation corrects Mormon's mistakes, that still leaves the question of why JS didn't just receive the name of "sheum" in English unanswered.

The answer is simplicity itself and let's do a thought experiment ==>> Please tell me the english word for "taco". How would you translate it?

Sheum is sheum, an unknown grain to JS with no english equivalent in 1825. It clearly was not wheat or barley.

.

Edited February 18, 2013 by cdowis

[Alvino]

Right. There could have been a "translation" (of some sort, although the definition starts to get a bit hazy here, right?). But, what you haven't tried to explain is why Joseph would need to.

You explained why he couldn't or why it would have been better for him to leave a doubly transliterated term. You should have asked this yourself but now we have reasons over the table. Shall we not address them, please?

Translators as a whole don't always feel the need to correct errors in the text, or to make translations of terms that the original author doesn't translate. Proper names would an example of only one type. My name is Benjamin, which stems from a Hebrew word with an actual definition (apart from its use as a personal name). Should my text be translated, should the translator translate my name? I would hope not. But, there are other instances when translating terms doesn't occur because it does violence to a text. And that ultimately is the issue here. You seem to be fixated on this idea - but I haven't really seen you try and justify the sort of scenario you are presenting.

Are you backing away from your previous position and now saying he just didn't want to translate it? If not, how about addressing my objections?

No matter what the process looks like, the process has to produce a text that we can read and understand.

On this front it clearly would have been better to give the English translation rather than a transliteration we don't know what it means.

So, you are suggesting that God could do all sorts of things in terms of this translational process, but, we have to ask why God would? Is there a reason why we would expect God to translate texts in a way that the outcome would be substantially different than the outcomes of translation processes we normally engage in? And what is God's desire for the text that is the outcome? How are we supposed to read it and understand it? If we are not to understand it as a translation of the words and intentions of Mormon and Moroni (and others in the small plates section), then why wouldn't that be made perfectly clear to us. No matter how I look at your approach to the text, it onyl creates more potential for misunderstanding the text in a fundamental way than leaving a textual artifact untranslated does. Your suggestions seem to do more damage to the text than mine do.

Because translating "sheum" would respect Mormon's intention of having a record people can read more clearly than leaving an unknown term. Just kidding there.

As I explained to you before, even if one decides to leave a word untranslated but transliterated, that doesn't mean you can't provide the translation or closer translations and what the original symbols were in a footnote. That is what a responsible translator would have to do and that is actually what we expect in "translation processes we normally engage in."

You seem to be beating your head into a wall here.

You gave reasons, I told you why they don't work. If you are now going to say this doesn't matter anyways or I'm beating my head into a wall, then at least say you won't be addressing what I responded to. You would be a good apologist.

Why not start over and explain what you think the translation should have looked like, and why. Don't tell me what you think God could have done - we can go on endlessly with that one

It isn't very nice to pull out of a conversation like this.

I think that my approach (which is to treat the text substantially like any other translation) is quite reasonable, myself.

Of course you do. However, I gave reasons why what JS produced is not what we would expect from a translator and provided reasons why what you proposed could have been Mormon's intentions don't make much sense. You are asking me here a lot of questions that clearly diverge from the reasoning you provided to support your view. Please don't do this.

Simply telling me that it isn't reasonable, but not really explaining why it isn't reasonable isn't going to make much headway in a discussion like this.

?

Didn't I explain why what JS produced is not what we would expect from a responsible translator? I did. Didn't I explain why what you take to perhaps be Mormon's intentions are implausible? I did. Do you need me to repeat them here?

What we would expect from a responsible translator, if she decides to leave a transliterated transliterated term, is to leave it in the main text, provide a footnote on what closer translations are or the translation itself, and the word in the original symbols. Not to mention reasons for why she leaves the term transliterated in the main text.

On Mormon's supposed intentions I wrote:

"You mean his intentions of him, Mormon, writing the word as he did, right? There is nothing about Mormon choosing to not translate but transliterate a word that means his intention is that no one afterwards translates it even if it meant being clearer. JS translating Mormon's first transliteration to English would have gone with Mormon's intention of producing an accurate document as close to the original writer's meaning."

and

"But nothing that's written in the BoM is Reformed Egyptian or whatever the plates were written on. Why respect Mormon's wishes so much that JS wouldn't translate Mormon's transliteration to the correct English word but JS would transliterate what Mormon wrote? (Let's say the original symbols in the gold plates for sheum were @#$#@) Why not go so far as to respect Mormon's wishes more and leave @#$#@ instead of the English transliteration we have today? Honestly, this is just not a good position to take at any level. It seems incredible that Mormon would have preferred having a transliteration of his transliterated (or copied) word no on knows what it is now in the English version of his plates, instead of having the correct English translation or a clear explanation of what sheum is, which is what we don't have."

..nothing of which did you address.

And ultimately, we have to recognize that you are making this mountain out of a bit of text that has absolutely no impact on the theological message of the text

You mean "we are". I think it matters a little bit and even if it didn't it would not stop being of interest.

How about we clear this out and focus on the reasons before you start asking me whether I believe in God or not? Discussing those questions can easily devolve into ad homs that distract the conversation.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

The answer is simplicity itself and let's do a thought experiment ==>> Please tell me the english word for "taco". How would you translate it?

I would translate it "taco" because that is the already existing word, and, if I were to write to people who didn't know what it was, I would have to provide the original word in the original alphabet (in this case is pretty much the same), explanation of what it was to distinguish it from other Mexican dishes, etc. I would clearly not just write an unknown word and that's it.

Sheum is sheum, an unknown grain to JS with no english equivalent in 1825.

How do you know it was unknown to JS with no English equivalent? After all, you don't know what sheum is.

[cdowis]

You don't get it.

Edited February 18, 2013 by cdowis

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alvino writes:

On this front it clearly would have been better to give the English translation rather than a transliteration we don't know what it means

It's not at all clear to me. This seems to be your personal preference.

As I explained to you before, even if one decides to leave a word untranslated but transliterated, that doesn't mean you can't provide the translation or closer translations and what the original symbols were in a footnote. That is what a responsible translator would have to do and that is actually what we expect in "translation processes we normally engage in."

No. This is not what a responsible translator would do. And its not what I would expect in a translation process. And I own many books that are translated that I can provide examples from. Would you like a few?

"You mean his intentions of him, Mormon, writing the word as he did, right? There is nothing about Mormon choosing to not translate but transliterate a word that means his intention is that no one afterwards translates it even if it meant being clearer. JS translating Mormon's first transliteration to English would have gone with Mormon's intention of producing an accurate document as close to the original writer's meaning."

This seems to be utter nonsense, if you pardon me for saying so. So why don't I provide an example for you. Let's grab something off the shelf that I have read recently. Ah here we go, I am holding a copy of Kant and the Platypus by Umberto Eco, translated from the Italian by Alastair McEwen. So, from 25, here is one paragraph:

Or it was possible, as the Schoolmen did, to identify the foundation of being with God as ipsum esse. It was as theology that philosophy first filled the empty spaces left by metaphysics as the science of being. But philosophically this is an escamotage: it is thus for the philosopher with religious convictions, who must accept that faith will act as a stand-in where reason can say nothing; it is thus for the philosopher with religious convictions, who must accept that faith will act as a stand-in where reason can say nothing; it is thus for the nonbelieving philosopher, who sees theology constructing the ghost of God in reaction to philosophy's incapacity to control what, while it is more evident than any other thing, is still a mere ghost as far as he is concerned. Besides, just to be able to talk of the ipsum esse, which is supposed to be the foundation of our very power of speech, it is necessary to elaborate a language. Since this cannot be the same language that names the entities univocally, and in accordance with the laws of argumentation, it must be the language of analogy. But it is imprecise to say that the principle of analogy comes first and then the possibility of applying it to the ens or even to the ipsum esse. We can talk of God precisely because we admit right from the start that an analogia entis exists: of being, not of language. But who says that being is analagous? Language. It is a circle.

So there is a first example. Eco, writing in Italian, uses several words from Latin. In translation no good translator will translate the Latin also back into English. If Eco was concerned about people not understanding the Latin, he would have provided it in the Italian. But he doesn't. So the translator is obligated to follow suit. There is no footnote, not parenthetical explaining what the Latin means (for those who don't know). And it happens constantly throughout the book. I see the same thing in my Julia Kristeva translations, my Derrida, and so on. Obviously what you think is normal isn't. And that perhaps is the reason why that apsect of the discussion broke down. You made a number of assertions that I simply don't accept or believe to be accurate. Your second set of comments (that I didn't respond to) went like this:

But nothing that's written in the BoM is Reformed Egyptian or whatever the plates were written on. Why respect Mormon's wishes so much that JS wouldn't translate Mormon's transliteration to the correct English word but JS would transliterate what Mormon wrote? (Let's say the original symbols in the gold plates for sheum were @#$#@) Why not go so far as to respect Mormon's wishes more and leave @#$#@ instead of the English transliteration we have today? Honestly, this is just not a good position to take at any level. It seems incredible that Mormon would have preferred having a transliteration of his transliterated (or copied) word no on knows what it is now in the English version of his plates, instead of having the correct English translation or a clear explanation of what sheum is, which is what we don't have.

I think that you are simply wrong. Your insistence doesn't make a good argument. Why is it, in the other thread that I am currently participating on, do I refer to things like levirate marriage, or a levir or halitzah? They are all Hebrew words. I could produce the Hebrew I am sure (the forum is pretty good for doing that - I have done so on occaission when I thought it was necessary). But I am also quite aware of the fact that there is only a small handful of individuals here who have any clue as to what I was saying. Whereas using the transliterations allows me to make my point and probably double or triple my audience, right? It's simply a practical matter. Joseph wasn't just reading, he was dictating. Can you imagine .... "No, Oliver, cross that out and start over. The diagonal line needs to connect a bit higher - just over that semi-circle part ... that's right and ... whoops. Now you gotta do it again. And of course look at the audience. Virtually every book I read with foreign language characters is aimed at providing those characters to an audience that can actually read them. The Book of Mormon was meant to be read. I can read Sheum (even if I can only guess at a meaning due to context). I can't read @#$#@ (my, that looks self-deprecating doesn't it). Not only can I not read @#$#@, but, in the long run, without any idea of how it is pronounced, or what the equivalent make up is in English, I can't make any kind of guesses as to what it might mean. So, I tend to diagree with your point of view here in several ways, and on very fundamental levels.

How about we clear this out and focus on the reasons before you start asking me whether I believe in God or not? Discussing those questions can easily devolve into ad homs that distract the conversation

How about you answer a few simple questions. These are not complicated questions. The last two have yes or no answers and the first is simply a choice between two options. They aren't terribly ambiguous. The issue though (and your sudden resistance is telling) is that almost always when I see this sort of approach it comes with a critical view that doesn't believe in translations by the power of God, and wants to see the whole mess as evidence of a confused author or some such. The problem I have with this, is that if you don't believe in God, for example, or you don't believe that the translation was produced by the power of God, then any insistence that you have about what God should or shouldn't have done doesn't come from any sort of belief (or assumption about God), rather it comes from the position of wanting to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. So I think that the these questions are relevant, and necessary to the discussion points that you are raising. If you believe in a divinely assisted translation then we can talk about the differences we have between the two models that we are using. If you don't, then its an entirely different sort of discussion, don't you think?

Ben M.

[CV75]

But I can't figure out for the life of me why bury his face in a hat to leave light out, but yet don't need anything for his ears to hear.

Why cannot you figure out that studying, learning and practicing different approaches is a means of exploring and using the many facets of the revelatory translation process? I'm sure there are many approaches that have been used by prophets throughout time, and even additional approaches that Joseph used that he didn't mention.

Edited February 18, 2013 by CV75

[Alvino]

It's not at all clear to me. This seems to be your personal preference.

If you think putting a word like "sheum" that we don't know what it is is better than putting the right English translation (assuming there was one) to "produce a text that we can read and understand", then I don't know what else to tell you other than 'that is silly to me'.

No. This is not what a responsible translator would do. And its not what I would expect in a translation process. And I own many books that are translated that I can provide examples from. Would you like a few?

We are not talking about translations anyone can verify or look up to see if it's correct, as is the case with the translation of Eco's writings you mention here. We are talking about a translation from a language no one at JS's time knew to English. If you know your audience can reasonably easy understand or find what the untranslated term means, then of course you don't need to put what the term means or why you leave it as a transliteration or untranslated. If, on the other hand, you were to translate a document as cryptic as the golden plates would have been, or as Egyptian hieroglyphs were at one time, then of course you have to explain what the untranslated word means because very few (in this case no one else) know.

Simply put, as a translator you can't just write down a word no one knows what it means except probably you, which is what JS did and is NOT what someone translating from an ancient language does.

This seems to be utter nonsense, if you pardon me for saying so. So why don't I provide an example for you. Let's grab something off the shelf that I have read recently. Ah here we go, I am holding a copy of Kant and the Platypus by Umberto Eco, translated from the Italian by Alastair McEwen. So, from 25, here is one paragraph:

So there is a first example. Eco, writing in Italian, uses several words from Latin. In translation no good translator will translate the Latin also back into English. If Eco was concerned about people not understanding the Latin, he would have provided it in the Italian. But he doesn't. So the translator is obligated to follow suit. There is no footnote, not parenthetical explaining what the Latin means (for those who don't know). And it happens constantly throughout the book. I see the same thing in my Julia Kristeva translations, my Derrida, and so on. Obviously what you think is normal isn't. And that perhaps is the reason why that apsect of the discussion broke down. You made a number of assertions that I simply don't accept or believe to be accurate. Your second set of comments (that I didn't respond to) went like this:

What I said would be nonsensical if you think I'm speaking of translations from languages like Latin or Italian to English (how you think this compares to translating a unique ancient language few know about is a bit baffling). We are speaking about ancient writings here where what will be conveyed to readers is only what you will tell them the text says. If in a case like that you simply put a word that may be a transliteration but no one knows what it means without any clarification, notes, or original symbols, then that's a problem.

Now, I can't provide examples of exactly that - I have no unique translations from lost languages - and even if I could that wouldn't support what I said, namely, that a responsible translator would have to do what I mentioned she should do in the situations relevant here. As I said earlier, how you think leaving an unknown transliterated word is better for having a clear document to read than the English translation or notes is beyond me.

I can, however, provide something that comes a bit closer and this is from pretty much any translated book that has terms readers may not know about. In this edition of Euclid's Elements , in the early section called "Some Euclidean Terminology", page xxiii, Proclus is quoted as saying "Every problem and every theorem, which is complete with all its parts perfect, purports to contain in itself all of the following elements: enunciations [then in parenthesis the word in Greek which I won't write], setting-out [then Greek word], definition [...]."

Not to mention Eco and Euclid are somwhat specialized texts. The BoM's audience isn't scholars and academics but the world in general so even stranger that an unknown word appears in there.

I think that you are simply wrong. Your insistence doesn't make a good argument. Why is it, in the other thread that I am currently participating on, do I refer to things like levirate marriage, or a levir or halitzah? They are all Hebrew words.

Because someone besides you knows what they are or, if the don't, can relatively easily find out what they mean. Hebrew isn't a lost language. How good a participant would you be if you threw a bunch of words around no one besides you knew what they were? Not a very good one.

So I think that the these questions are relevant, and necessary to the discussion points that you are raising.

When we think about a particular issue to see if it makes sense or not we assume that it is true for a moment, then see where this assumption takes us and weight that in comparison to what we actually believe to see if that initial assumption is better than the one we actually believed before. Also, one can compare several ideas by assuming one and see where it leads, then assuming the other and see where that one leads. At no point in this process does one need to actually believe the initial assumption to see if it makes sense or not. If you think it's right to say of someone that they are just being argumentative because they don't believe what they are arguing against, then you'll throw (in principle) the whole of apologetics out the window. Should the non-believing world toss LDS defenses of the faith off because LDS believers just don't believe the attacks are correct?

Be careful and, please, stop the subtle ad hominem distractions.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

Why cannot you figure out that studying, learning and practicing different approaches is a means of exploring and using the many facets of the revelatory translation process?

It may be but it seems rather clear that JS couldn't translate the BoM without his face-in-the-hat method. I don't think you could say he was exploring different translation methods in the time he was translating the BoM.

I'm sure there are many approaches that have been used by prophets throughout time, and even additional approaches that Joseph used that he didn't mention.

He might have not mentioned that he was hearing stuff. Although you couldn't blame me for going more with the historical accounts and not with less supported speculation.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Alvino

[bu11fr0g]

Anyone who thinks Joseph Smith translated in an academically rigorous way is foolish.

[bu11fr0g]

Remember that the plates were obtained via an angel. If you can't swallow that, it is hopeless to try to explain a spiritually accurate translation.

[Rivers]

It would be nice if Bro. Gardner himself can join this discussion but I have his book so I can try to explain what he wrote on this subject.

According to Gardner, most of the translation was functional except for names and a few other instances. Curleloms and cummims are spelled out because they came from the Jaredite record and it was unknown exactly what they were. The names of weights and measures were spelled out because they functioned as names. As far as I can see, Gardner does not give an explanation for why sheum and neas were spelled out. But he does list sheum as something that appears to be tightly translated.

The interesting thing about Gardner's book is that a lot of so-called hebraisms are dismissed as originating from the language of the KJ Bible. So Bro. Gardner does not pick and choose in the manner described by Cinepro.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Rivers

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alvino,

Maybe there is a stalemate, but let me explain a few things that I see in your comments. Perhaps that will help you understand the reasons why there are issues with your questions and your comments. Let me start with this:

Simply put, as a translator you can't just write down a word no one knows what it means except probably you, which is what JS did and is NOT what someone translating from an ancient language does.

Now, you remember on the first page of this thread - Cinepro made a couple comments about two opposing views of models of translation (and while what he said was tongue in cheek, it is to some extent quite accurate - where he isn't very accurate in his description is perhaps in the fact that some members like myself, or say, Royal Skousen, or Brant, have some fairly detailed and specific views on this subject, that a sort of general overview doesn't do justice to). Here were those comments:

You need to understand that the translation process of the Book of Mormon was "tight", meaning that Joseph Smith was given exact words and phrases to such a degree that he could spell proper nouns and words that had no English equivalent (Curelom), ... Except for the times when the translation was done using a "loose" method, wherein Joseph was given impressions and other encouragement while dictating the text using his own vocabulary and cultural references, allowing him to interject his own influence.

Now this is well and good, but, you might recognize that within these two models, what you say fits the "loose" method. It doesn't fit the tight method. So, for a person who pretty rigidly follows a tight model of translation and text construction, Joseph can receive the word "Sheum" and have no idea at all what it means (except that, as a reader of the text just like me, he can make some guesses based on context and come to the conclusion that "Sheum" represents some sort of domesticated crop). So your suggestion that Joseph knew what the word meant, and did not translate it only works for a specific type of modeling of the translation process. There is a built in assumption in your comments that you may not be aware of, but which has been discussed a great deal within the Mormon Studies community. Since I reject that assumption, it makes it hard to respond to your comments and approach on an issue like this without first starting at the obvious point of disagreement - what role did Joseph play in the translation of the text.

My view (which I have expressed in these forums many times in the past) is that we can see Joseph's role as a reader of the text. He is not directly responsible for the translation (indirectly so perhaps). He is quite capable of misunderstanding the text, much like the rest of us. The only reason why we might privege his readings of the text would be that he had additional contact with the angel Moroni, who was one of the author's of the gold plates. But, even then, I don't particularly see a need to hold up Joseph as a model of best intepretation of the English text of the Book of Mormon.

Do you see how that basic assumption can color the entire discussion? To someone who believes that Joseph Smith played an active role in the translation, that Joseph determined word choices at a conscious level, and so on, your concern could elicit an entirely different sort of response.

But, if you have never given the issue that Cinepro mentioned - this idea of tight or loose translation - much thought, it creates a challenge because you are starting from assumptions that are contested within the Mormon community.

So my response to your whole first chunk of text is simply that I do not believe that Joseph had any clue what the word "Sheum" meant. He never provided a definition of it, or talked about it, or wrote about it. There is no evidence that he did know, any suspicion that he might have would have to be based on a fundamental assumption about his role in the translation process. Joseph wasn't the translator, per se. He looked through the interpreters, or at the stone, and he read. I also should explain, that my rather nuanced view on the various roles needed to create a text (any text) and the roles presented in this process in particular, are heavily influenced by my reading of Erving Goffman's Forms of Talk.

Next.

What I said would be nonsensical if you think I'm speaking of translations from languages like Latin or Italian to English (how you think this compares to translating a unique ancient language few know about is a bit baffling). We are speaking about ancient writings here where what will be conveyed to readers is only what you will tell them the text says. If in a case like that you simply put a word that may be a transliteration but no one knows what it means without any clarification, notes, or original symbols, then that's a problem.

So, this brings up the question of who the "you" is, and what you mean by translating. These are really important issues in this case. Is translation simply moving text from one language to another? Do we follow rules? Are we interested only in a lexical-grammatical rendering or does meaning play a role and rhetoric, and intentions on the part of authors? How do we translate idioms? Do we go for a literal translation, knowing full well that the actual meaning conveyed by the idiom will be lost? (The same can happen with metaphors, allegories, and so on). Do translators work to find a balance between literal renderings of the text in a grammatical-lexical sense and renderings that attempt to convey the rheotric and meaning that the original author intended? This is the issue that I raise. And it doesn't matter (despite your insistence) - at some level if my expectation of the text involving 'Sheum' is right, then your expectation does damage to the text the way I see it. It doesn't add clarity, it removes it. It forces an interpretation of the text that not only excludes what Mormon actually wrote on the gold plates, it removes his intention from the text as well. it doesn't matter that we have ambiguity in the text because of the word we don't understand, because of course Mormon may well have intended the ambiguity to exist in the text that he wrote.

And of course, with my model of understanding the process, the one who makes this determination isn't Joseph Smith (who has no idea what "Sheum" means), its the power of God that makes this determination. So our assumptions don't just reflect on what we think should have been in the text, it reflects on what we think God would translated that text to. Does God want to reflect the text that Mormon wrote and intended, or would God want to create this clarity that you speak of, at the expense of the text that Mormon wrote and intended.

In this way, you are already making certain assumptions about the translation process - but by not coming forward and explaining those assumptions, I am forced to create this kind of framework of your opinions and beliefs about the process that may or may not be accurate. And then I have to address that framework - because that framework is absolutely fundamental to the problem you pose. It must be addressed before we can talk about the other issues. You list a set of what you perceive as benefits to translation occurring one way, I list a set of benefits of translation going the other way. You don't get both at the same time (this of course isn't caused by God's inability to do what he wants, its caused by our imperfections and the imperfections of our languages).

Continuing

Now, I can't provide examples of exactly that - I have no unique translations from lost languages - and even if I could that wouldn't support what I said, namely, that a responsible translator would have to do what I mentioned she should do in the situations relevant here. As I said earlier, how you think leaving an unknown transliterated word is better for having a clear document to read than the English translation or notes is beyond me.

Right. But I think this is because you haven't ever given much thought to the subject matter we call "semiotics". The book I mentioned earlier - Kant and the Platypus is a book devoted entirely to questions of semiotics. But, I am trying to at least get you to recognize that while it may seem "silly" to you, its not irrational. And on top of this, I can point out with absolute certainty that not knowing what "Sheum" means doesn't prevent us from understanding the text, doesn't prevent us from knowing something about "Sheum" from the context, and given that it occurs only once in a non-theological context, it doesn't prevent us from understanding the meaning that the Book of Mormon is trying to convey as a communicative act. So despite your suggestions, they do come across as having limited value in this specific context.

Perhaps a better example of what I am trying to describe in terms of damage to a text (in terms of write authors write and what they intend) can be seen in a bit from Marco Polo's description of his travels in Java (I have used this example elsewhere on these forums, so you can dig around for more discussion if you want). The translation of the passage goes like this:

There are wild elephants in the country, and numerous unicorns, which are very nearly as big. They have hair like that of a buffalo, feet like those of an elephant, and a horn in the middle of the forehead, which is black and very thick. They do no mischief, however, with the horn, but with the tongue alone; for this is covered all over with long and strong prickles and when savage with any one they crush him under their knees and then rasp him with their tongue. The head resembles that of a wild boar, and they carry it ever bent towards the ground. They delight much to abide in mire and mud. 'Tis a passing ugly beast to look upon, and is not in the least like that which our stories tell of as being caught in the lap of a virgin; in fact, 'tis altogether different from what we fancied.

What is the problem here? Of course, Marco Polo encountered what we think of as a "rhinoceros" in Java, and not what we think of as a unicorn. But he wrote "unicorn", and we translate it as "unicorn". Even while we also know that there were no unicorns. But, what we cannot do is go back into Polo's text and fix this by putting in the rhinoceros. Why? Because for Marco Polo, the "unicorn" has a different definition than it does for us. It means both a four legged, equine animal with a horn coming out of its forehead (that can in fact be caught in the lap of a virgin) and it means what we would term a rhinoceros. And if we use a rhinoceros here in translation, we damage the text, because now we have the whole comparison of a rhinoceros "being caught in the lap of a virgin". And such a comparison loses much of what Marco Polo was doing with his language. Now, this is only an analogue to the issue of "Sheum" in a certain way. I am not trying to get into the question of an unknown ancient language. I am trying to point out that translating something to meet what we want and understand in a text as opposed to what the author wanted and understood in his text can create misunderstanding of a text - it can do damage to it. And the point I am making is that before we can decide how a particular bit of a text should be translated, we first have to have some idea of what our objective is in providing the text - what are we trying to produce when we translate? What relationship should our translation have to the source? That question you haven't answered.

Finally -

At no point in this process does one need to actually believe the initial assumption to see if it makes sense or not.

The challenge for me is that you aren't very clear about your initial assumptions. I have to draw them out - and when I do, I find that they aren't always consistent. You are like the apologist that Cinepro generally describes in his comments on page one: "Feel free to use whichever theory is needed to explain any given portion of the Book of Mormon." Except that you move back and forth depending on how you want to approach the question you have. When your initial assumptions seem to conflict with each other, then I think we do have to address them.

If you think it's right to say of someone that they are just being argumentative because they don't believe what they are arguing against, then you'll throw (in principle) the whole of apologetics out the window.

The point is this. I suggest that God is the power that does the actual translation, and Joseph simply reads it. If you want to say that its "silly" for God to translate something one way as opposed to another way (when in fact you don't believe that God translates at all), there is a fundamental dishonesty with your approach (which is more silly - that God translates one way, or that God translates another way, if God doesn't actually translate, right?). Rather you should simply make your point which is that it isn't a translation and move on from there. But for me to try and answer your question when you create a set of rules that make answering it to your satisfaction impossible within my understanding of the problem, then what is the point of the discussion to begin with? If you have already intuited the answer, and every possibility that doesn't end with your conclusion becomes silliness, should I worry about engaging?

Is this really an ad hominem distraction? I certainly don't think so. Since I am not suggesting that we should discount your argument because you aren't a believer (if you aren't), I am simply pointing out that without a shared point of reference, the comparison becomes difficult. And these assumptions have a direct impact on how we see the process (if you don't see God involved, and I see God involved, can you really give me meaningful dialogue on why my understanding of God's role is silly?). If we have disagreements on such fundamental levels, then the stalemate is going to happen - but its not really happening at the tail end of the discussion like you seem to think - its already happening at the beginning - and we won't ever get past the silly label under any circumstances. I like to know this from the get go, because then I can realize that you aren't my primary audience any more. And I think that if you can be open about your fundamental assumptions, we can get past the problem of dealing with the contradictions in your assumptions about the nature of the translation without feeling like we are swimming through molasses.

Ben M.

[Alvino]

Now this is well and good, but, you might recognize that within these two models, what you say fits the "loose" method. It doesn't fit the tight method.

I had several concerns, some of them pertaining the loose, some the tight. The concern I had with the tight is that it doesn't explain why JS didn't just give the English translation of "sheum" - given that he was translating everything else - instead of a transliteration no one knows the meaning of. You have been trying to solve this problem in the thread by saying that doing that may not have been to respect Mormon's intentions and to that I responded with criticisms and disagreement. To that last you haven't responded to. Why are my criticisms of the "Mormon's intentions" argument wrong? We were already assuming JS was receiving the translation in a rather tight way so it is confusing that now you think I've been assuming JS was understanding the translation.

So your suggestion that Joseph knew what the word meant, and did not translate it only works for a specific type of modeling of the translation process.

I haven't really been assuming JS knew what "sheum" meant. Actually, he didn't know what any word in the BoM meant until through the power of God. The original question since the OP is, why didn't JS just receive the English translation? You have been saying that he didn't receive the English translation from God (or chose not to write it IF we assume JS knew what it meant, which we are not) because that would have been to go against Mormon's intentions. That argument fails and I explained quite a bit why.

The question is not resolved if you say JS didn't know what "sheum" means. JS was receiving through inspiration what words in the plates meant, or just the translation without any reference to the symbols in the plates. Why did "sheum", an unknown word to anyone, appeared there? Why not the English translation?

In addressing what you've been saying I have not been assuming JS understood the text and that he was making conscious choices on what to write. I don't need to assume that to say JS could have received the English word, or could have left the transliteration in the main text and put translations in a note, or closer translations to distinguish "sheum" from other crops. It doesn't matter who was in charge of the translation. If God, why didn't God send JS the translation? Or, why didn't God send the translation to JS's understanding?

When I ask, "why didn't JS write the translation?" I'm not saying, "Why didn't JS choose to write the translation?" It seems you thought I did.

But, if you have never given the issue that Cinepro mentioned - this idea of tight or loose translation - much thought, it creates a challenge because you are starting from assumptions that are contested within the Mormon community.

My OP was a direct attack to both. I thought that was pretty obvious. You chose to go with one of those and that's what we've been discussing. Rather strange that you now think I've been assuming JS knew what "sheum" meant.

It doesn't add clarity, it removes it. It forces an interpretation of the text that not only excludes what Mormon actually wrote on the gold plates, it removes his intention from the text as well.

Adding an English translation of "sheum" removes clarity but adding a word no one knows what it means doesn't? That's new.

Brother, everything in the BoM as we have it today is an exclusion of what Mormon actually wrote on the plates. We don't have his symbols and we don't have a way to compare what we have today to the original, either. How it is that you think translating everything else he wrote to English is not to exclude what he wrote, but not translating and only transliterating "sheum" is to exclude what he wrote doesn't make sense to me.

You could say, however, that to translate "sheum" into English would have been impossible since no English word existed. As I said before, even if you go with this last option, that doesn't explain why JS couldn't have received a clarification on what "sheum" was or even a couple of closer English translations even if the main text preserves the transliteration.

The problem with saying a correct English translation of sheum removes Mormon's intentions from the text is the following. Was Mormon's intention that readers have as clear an understanding as possible of the text? Or, was Mormon's intention that we keep a transliteration (not his anyways, btw) even if it means no one knowing what it means? Given the pains the people in the BoM seem to have taken to keep the record as clear as possible, it seems to me implasuble that Mormon would have prefered the world to have a transliteration of the transliteration he wrote (but we don't know what it means) rather than an accurate English translation.

it doesn't matter that we have ambiguity in the text because of the word we don't understand,

This isn't ambiguity, don't downplay what we actually have. We have ignorance. As I said, that Mormon would have preferred this seems greatly implausible given the changes editors were willing to make to the text in BoM times, and given the pains the took to make the text as clear as possible knowing that it would be brought forth to many people.

Does God want to reflect the text that Mormon wrote and intended, or would God want to create this clarity that you speak of, at the expense of the text that Mormon wrote and intended.

Let me repeat and be clear. We do NOT have what Mormon wrote and intended if you mean by that the words he actually wrote in the plates. We do NOT have what Mormon wrote and intended even if you only mean Mormon's transliteration because we do not have Mormon's transliteration, we have the one given to JS in English. Add to that that us having an unknown word would not seem to be what Mormon would have intended us to have in the first place.

But, I am trying to at least get you to recognize that while it may seem "silly" to you, its not irrational.

What you are responding to with this comment is not what I qualified as silly.

Also, I never said not knowing "sheum" prevented us from understanding the BoM at all. I never said not knowing "sheum" meant that we won't understand the text as a whole. I never said the context of "sheum" didn't tell us that it was probably a grain. I never implied nor suggested nor declared that any of this was the case.

I am trying to point out that translating something to meet what we want and understand in a text as opposed to what the author wanted and understood in his text can create misunderstanding of a text - it can do damage to it.

No more damage than if you plug in a word no one knows the meaning of instead of even a closer translation. Or you could have both, as I mentioned, they are not mutually exclusive.

And the point I am making is that before we can decide how a particular bit of a text should be translated, we first have to have some idea of what our objective is in providing the text - what are we trying to produce when we translate? What relationship should our translation have to the source? That question you haven't answered.

You really don't see that for the criticism I made of your Mormon's intention argument I'm assuming we want to follow Mormon's intention? I'm going with that but what you conclude from that is what doesn't make sense.

If you want to say that its "silly" for God to translate something one way as opposed to another way

Please be careful and go back to read what I called silly. What I said was silly was the thought that having a transliteration of a transliteration - a totally unknown word - was better than having a closer English translation or the exact English translation or both.

Rather you should simply make your point which is that it isn't a translation and move on from there. But for me to try and answer your question when you create a set of rules that make answering it to your satisfaction impossible within my understanding of the problem, then what is the point of the discussion to begin with?

My intent here is to show you why you are wrong on this. For that I can go with most of your assumptions and I think to accomplish that would be more than enough for one conversation.

Is this really an ad hominem distraction? I certainly don't think so. Since I am not suggesting that we should discount your argument because you aren't a believer (if you aren't), I am simply pointing out that without a shared point of reference, the comparison becomes difficult.

An ad hominem distraction is not an ad hominem fallacy. Even ad hominem attacks are not fallacies by themselves, since there is no inference made, nor are attacks necessarily distractions. Focusing on beliefs neither of both are assuming to argue is indeed and ad hominem distraction.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Alvino

[CV75]

It may be but it seems rather clear that JS couldn't translate the BoM without his face-in-the-hat method.

Well, at the very least it can’t be said he didn’t translate it with that method. But "couldn’t" is a rather rigidly limited view of the situation.

I don't think you could say he was exploring different translation methods in the time he was translating the BoM.

But that is the whole point of my posts: that he was, as guided by the Spirit. What do you think "studying it out" involves? There are many ways to skin a cat and learning them is one aspect of becoming an expert in skinning a cat.

He might have not mentioned that he was hearing stuff. Although you couldn't blame me for going more with the historical accounts and not with less supported speculation.

There is nothing wrong with going with the historical accounts at face value, but if you know there is more to history than the accounts of it, and you have questions about understanding extant accounts, don’t limit yourself to strictly historical explanations.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Haven't forgotten about you - just haven't had much time today. Might not get back to this thread until tomorrow.