Questions About Js'S Translation Procedure Of The Bom.

[Benjamin McGuire]

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.

My apologies. I must have misread this comment of yours:

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.

So, out of curiosity, if this wasn't referring to Joseph as the translator, does this mean that you were referring to God as the translator here? (It doesn't need an answer, I guess I am trying to point out why I was confused by your comment).

Moving on.

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.

Ok, so let's back up just a little bit. If the translation is "tight" then Joseph Smith is merely a reader of the text. He plays no role in the translation whatsoever. You can agree with this right?

You noted this early on:

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.

Moving the translation away from Joseph doesn't remove the need to look at these issues - only, we don't need to ask what Joseph thought about them, we need to ask what our expectation is of the power of God, right? So we still need to talk about the potential for errors in the text, we still need to talk about a word-for-word translation versus an idea-for-idea sort of translation. The question of intentions of the author (i.e. Mormon and Moroni) becomes even more significant because we might assume that while Joseph (working as translator) doesn't have direct access to those intentions, perhaps an omniscient God does have direct access to those intentions. And so these issues still make a difference when we talk about words like "Sheum" occurring in the text.

Later you wrote this:

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.

Now, you really meant here that God was translating, right, not Joseph Smith. Simply put, I don't find this argument convincing. If Mormon was actually worried about having a word in there that he didn't know what it meant, then he could have excluded the text. He included a word he didn't know the meaning of, and so we cannot say that Mormon's intention was to provide clarity of meaning when he included a transliteration. So, creating a text that was "as close to the original writer's meaning" isn't really on the table as an option here. Meaning isn't something that a text has. Meaning is something that is created as a text is read. So Moroni may have wanted to preserve as accurately as possible his source, but that desire shouldn't be conflated with the issue of meaning (as you do). Mormon may have been more interested in trying to preserve the meaning of the text that Mormon discovered as he read it (and that would include keeping the partial ambiguity of these unknown words).

Where I start from is the obvious issue that there is a word ("sheum") in the text that seems to be transliterated. It isn't English. We can go over a list of reasons why a transliterated word might occur in a translated text. I have given a couple of those reasons in this thread. These aren't simply pulled out of thin air - they represent analogous occurrences. So I treat the Book of Mormon as a translation, and I explore reasons why I might find transliterations in the text, right? In the OP, you made the following points:

1: 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?

Now, its possible that no English word exists. But, that's a hard one to really argue about since of course, we don't have a clear understanding of what it refers to with any absolute certainty. There are some reasons not to accept this sort of understanding though, and that is that we have other places in the Book of Mormon where language is used that is probably not entirely accurate in terms of the English equivalent of the original subject matter (and not the textual treatment of it). A good example of this comes in 1 Nephi 18:25, with the mention of the "goat and the wild goat" - identifications which are far better linked to Deutreronomy and its classification of animals into clean and unclean animals. That is, the author of 1 Nephi is working to classify the animals in a way that allows the conditions of Deuteronomy to apply and so that the people can practice those aspects of their religion that depend on that classification. In real world terms - even in terms of the English of Joseph's day, those classifications probably do not represent whatever animals were being referred to in the way that an encyclopedia in Joseph's time would. So, assuming a translation is going on, your first argument doesn't seem to be reflected by the text even in places where we have a translation occuring into English words that we understand. So, the model of translation shouldn't be viewed as trying to correct these kinds of references back so some dictionary/encyclopedic usage of the English language contemporary with Joseph Smith.

2: 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.

From what information we have, he would simply have read the letters that he saw visually (no need for sound). It was already spelled out for him. He probably did not have any kind of special insight in how to pronounce it.

3: "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?"

But if Joseph is purely a reader (again the "tight" translation model) he doesn't need to know what the symbols are, what they meant, or even what they sounded like. He simply has to read the text that he sees before him. Now this may be an oversimplification of what actually happened, or it may not, but, this is the tight model in a nutshell (and its the model that best describes what I believe happened).

And having gotten to this point, we need to, at some point, start looking at what we really have in the text. I assume, when I read the text of the Book of Mormon that "Sheum" is a transliteration, and not a translation into English. I assume that it occurs because either the original was untranslatable into English (a possibility) or because it occurred distinctly in the gold plates (that is, it wasn't a part of the same reformed Egyptian in which the Gold Plates were used). I work my way back from there. The rest of my ideas describe, I think, plausible circumstances in which I would expect the outcome to be a transliterated word in the Book of Mormon. I base this on my expectations of translations, and the expectation I have developed based on the ideas that I accept about what a translation by the "power of God" entails. Certainly your concerns about how to translate Mormon's intentions haven't argued against the positions that I actually hold. And so they aren't convincing to me.

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?

The question still comes back to your assumptions as to why it should be English that appears. You haven't been able to explain those assumptions other than as a sort of personal preference - that is, the inclusion of this word "sheum" seems to be confusing. You don't expect to find a confusing word in the translation. Therefore its a problem. That seems to me to be the gist of your argument. The difference between us is that I don't have this problem with having a confusing word in the text (to the extent that it really is confusing - that is, not knowing what the definition is doesn't keep us from understanding the passasge, or even developing an expectation of what "sheum" means within the context where it occurs). In other words, I can produce what is for me a reasoned explanation of why a word like this might appear in the text, and how it would appear, and how it can be explained in terms of being a translation. But on some level, the real difference between us is over the assumption of what happens during that translation process. I don't think you have actually made a real argument against my ideas about Mormon's intentions. I am not sure you have even really understood my ideas.

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?

Right. So this gets back to the discussion about God, right? What makes you think that God doing these things (through Joseph Smith) provides a better outcome than God doing the things that I suggest in my model? What makes the one better than the other? Is it clarity on the part of the modern reader that is the most preferred outcome (a problem itself, since the longer the time gap between 1830 and the present day readers, the more information gets lost as language changes). Is it a translation that looks first and foremost to preserve the ideas and intentions of the ancient author (Mormon)? These are very relevant questions here because it is how we understand these questions that drives our expectations of the text. And if you understand these questions differently than I do, our disagreement comes at such a fundamental level that the issues in the text almost take a back seat.

Unless of course we assume in some way that the text is a real translation and work our way backward from that. And of course, if you don't think there really was a translation through the power of God, we are left with the issues I already raised.

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.

Right, but the answer to this question seems overly obvious in a "tight" translation model right? Joseph didn't choose anything about what to write. He just had written what he read. And so asking "why didn't JS write the translation" is really identical to the corrolary - "why didn't God give JS the translation". That's the real question you seem to be asking. And so we need to stop talking about Joseph Smith (whose role in this process is fixed, and really doesn't leave anything to be discussed - at least from this direction) and we need to start talking about God.

Does this make sense. This is why your comments have been sending mixed messages to me.

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

It depends on what the desired outcome is. I was reading a book not too long ago about narrative strategies in literature. There is a theme of confusion that is found sometimes in novels. That is, the main character (perhaps also the narrator) is experiencing confusion. When this occurs, this can be revealed in the text by simply describing it, or, the text itself can become confused, chaotic, hard to follow or to even understand as it reflects a proverbial descent into madness by the character(s) in the book. Clarity isn't the primary objective. When translating such a work (and I know that I am using a relatively strong example here) you don't go through the process in a way that tries to restore clarity to the text. You translate it in a way the maintains the increasing chaos and confusion so that the resulting translation remains true to the author's vision in the original work.

These two words (we really should include the other as well) are not so significant that it makes the reading difficult, or understanding impossible. When we read texts, we often recognize that there are different ways to read, and different meanings. We might, for example, prioritize them. Sometimes the use that we want to engage a text in changes that priority. Sometimes we may see that the best interpretation is the one that an author intended. Sometimes we might see the best reading as the one that is most useful in a polemical argument (we might willfully read someone's comments in the worst possible light just so that we can hit them over the head with our interpretation). There are other reading strategies. What we normally do is to value the various reading strategies so that we have a most valuable and and buch of not as valuable, and maybe some we see as just plain silly. What I see here is a difference in values - which is not to say that you are trying to twist the language around. Rather you are suggesting that the most valuable might be the one that the intended audience has the easiest time understanding. And I am suggesting in this case that the most valuable strategy is the one that most closely values the intentions of the original author. In this way, you see including a translation as more valuable than a transliteration. I see the transliteration as being more valuable than the translation. It's about two separate outcomes. Which is better? Well that brings us back again to the question of what we see God's choice being in this circumstance. (There's probably more to it than that, but, it all amounts to the same sort of philosophical discussion that leaves the real example in the real text behind).

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.

I can understand that. Can you also understand that it makes perfect sense to me? (I.e. that it isn't simply silliness, but rather a rational understanding of what is going on.)

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.

But you see all of your assumptions here that I disagree with? If Mormon uses a transliteration, the reason is that Mormon doesn't know what the words mean. So his purpose would seem to be to duplicate the historical record he was using, even if he didn't fully understand it (part, of course, of keeping records, right?) and that his guess as to understanding it would be as good as ours, and certainly adequate for his purposes. So I don't find it implausible at all. And your keeping on suggesting that its implausible isn't going to change my mind. In other words, it seems to boil down to a personal preference, or a philosophical preference. You have yours, and I have mine. Unless we want to move on to the philosophical discussion about the nature of texts, of reading, and of God, we have (as we have both already noted) reached as impasse.

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.

We don't have ignorance. I keep raising this point. The English language is large. I suspect there are words I don't understand. But, finding a word I don't know doesn't mean that I can't guess from the context what that word means. Take the word "sheum" for example - this is the context in which it occurs:

"And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land."

So from this context, I can clearly expect both "neas" and "sheum" to be domesticated crops that require planting using seeds. They seem to be grain as opposed to fruit. This is not complete ignorance. So let's not pretend that this is some sort of momentous text on which our doctrine and theology are reliant necessitating an absolutely accurate understanding. Of course we run into this same problem elsewhere in different ways yes? Akenside once wrote these lines:

Know then, the sovran spirit of the world,

Though self-collected from eternal time,

Within his own deep essence he beheld

The bounds of true felicity complete;

Yet by immense benignity inclin'd

To spread around him that primaeval joy

Which fill'd himself, he rais'd his plastic arm,

And sounded through the hollow depth of space

The strong, creative mandate.

And so we have the plastic arm of the creator. Except of course the fact this poem (excerpted from Volume 2 of Mark Akenside's The Pleasures of Imagination) was first published in 1744. And we don't reasonably expect (knowing this) that Akenside was talking about an arm made from a synthetic polymer (although perhaps we could infer this from the same phrase being used to apply to Dr. Kimball's assailant in The Fugitive - and Leslie Nielson's target in the parody Wrongfully Accused - the one-armed, one-legged, one-eyed man ...).

The point of that little detour is that while we may think that some sort of clarity is critical or essential, the problem of texts remains. We still have to read them, and interpret them. There isn't a perfect text because we don't have perfect language, and language changes. Will the vast majority of readers of the Book of Mormon (non-English speakers, reading a translation of the translation) really have that many worries about a situation like this? Do we think that God would place this value of clarity at the top of the interpretational hierarchy and yet run into the problem of language itself for us mortals that changes constantly? I am not sure that the argument holds once we move outside of such a narrow look.

I never implied nor suggested nor declared that any of this was the case.

Your use of the phrase "We have ignorance." confuses me then. Because it seems that you have implied this, and suggested it, and even declared 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.

As I said, this gets back to our own personal preference for a hierarchical value of potential meanings. I am not sure you do get both - but the fact that to do this would be to create some sort of textual apparatus (quite possible I suspect - but doing so would create a whole different kind of expectation in the reader, wouldn't it?).

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.

Really? What is the basis for your assessment of Mormon's intention other than your personal preference? It comes across as a substitute for your personal preference, not as something we can really attribute to Mormon. What is Mormon's intention? To provide a narrative history to his audience describing and showing the relationship of his people to God through their religious and secular history. It is to encourage his audience to encouter the divine themselves. It is not to create some sort of text that they cannot possibly misunderstand. Clarity of the sort you are arguing for doesn't seem to be an expectation I generally find in reading. Like I said, it seems to be just an extension of your personal preference.

So let me try again.

Do you believe in God? Do you believe that God translated the Book of Mormon? If its a yes to both of these, do you think that God would be more of an idea-for-idea sort of translator, or more of a word-for-word sort of translator.

The purpose of these questions isn't to serve as a distraction, its to reset the discussion back to where it needs to be. If Joseph Smith is merely a reader, and his role can be simply defined as a reader, then we can reasonably exclude him from the discussion, and avoid some further misunderstandings. And we can get back to talking about God, about Mormon's intentions, and about both Mormon's and God's ideal audiences.

Ben M.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[Alvino]

So, out of curiosity, if this wasn't referring to Joseph as the translator, does this mean that you were referring to God as the translator here? (It doesn't need an answer, I guess I am trying to point out why I was confused by your comment).

Whoever the translator was. My comment was a generalization that applies to both.

Ok, so let's back up just a little bit. If the translation is "tight" then Joseph Smith is merely a reader of the text. He plays no role in the translation whatsoever. You can agree with this right?

Sure.

Moving the translation away from Joseph doesn't remove the need to look at these issues

I don't know what issues you talk about here.

So we still need to talk about the potential for errors in the text, we still need to talk about a word-for-word translation versus an idea-for-idea sort of translation. The question of intentions of the author (i.e. Mormon and Moroni) becomes even more significant because we might assume that while Joseph (working as translator) doesn't have direct access to those intentions, perhaps an omniscient God does have direct access to those intentions. And so these issues still make a difference when we talk about words like "Sheum" occurring in the text.

Read what I was replying to with what you are quoting here. What you quote here was directed to something specific you said and that was what was irrelevant. I even said so at the end of post #33. I said, "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"

Try not to quote from such old posts, Ben, because the chances that you will misinterpret them increases since there is much more you have to keep up with.

Should I mention that this isn't the first time you've misrepresented things I said (I'm not saying you do this purposefully nor do I think that)? You were implying earlier that I described a bunch of ideas of yours as "silly" when I only described a very specific idea of yours as such.

Now, you really meant here that God was translating, right, not Joseph Smith.

Sure.

Simply put, I don't find this argument convincing. If Mormon was actually worried about having a word in there that he didn't know what it meant, then he could have excluded the text.

I didn't say Mormon was worried about having a word he didn't know what it meant in what he was writing.

Mormon had intentions towards what he was writing and intentions about what he wanted the book to do (be read by many people much after his time).

You are talking about Mormon's intentions towards his text and we agree that Mormon didn't know what that word meant so he transliterated it. His intention was indeed to have a transliterated word as he was writing it. On the other hand, Mormon clearly intended the text to be read as clearly as possible and it seems to me he would have prefered having the correct English translation of that word rather than an unknown double-transliteration. I'm not assuming Mormon would have done anything to have a document people could read and that he would go to such an extent as to erase a word he could transliterate. Certainly, a transliteration is better than erasing a word, specially when it's a noun.

If we say Mormon wanted to transliterate the original word to his language, it doesn't follow from that that Mormon wanted what he was writing to be transliterated instead of translated, or that he wanted no one to translate his transliteration. If we only take "Mormon's intentions" to be his intentions while transliterating the word "sheum" (let's call this use 1), then to transliterate his word to English (in the general translation process of the whole document to English) would indeed mirror his intentions better than translating it. If we take "Mormon's intentions" to be how he wanted the text to come forth (let's call this use 2), then it seems rather clear to me that he would have prefered the word to be translated so we know what it means as opposed to have a word we don't understand.

But using 1 is not without its problems. Why would the person who knows what Mormon's intentions were doesn't take into account what I think would have been his intentions in general (like his intention of readers to know what the word means by translating it just like it was his intention that we have a translation of the whole document so we know what it says)? Also, if we take the translator (God?) to be taking into account use 2 of Mormon's intentions, why not provide a translation of the word anyways as a sidenote? As I mentioned already, that we mirror Mormon's actions of transliterating the word instead of translating doesn't explain why the translator (God) wouldn't have also provided the English translation or closer translations of what "sheum" denotes also.

So Moroni may have wanted to preserve as accurately as possible his source,

OK, if this was his intention, then it is obvious that having the correct translation in English is the way to go, just as translating the BoM is better than to transliterate the whole thing.

but that desire shouldn't be conflated with the issue of meaning (as you do).

When one normally says things like "This word means X" or "That's what the word means" one doesn't try to imply there is meaning in the combination of lines and curves, Ben. One doesn't try to bring up more abstract issues of meaning by speaking like I did.

Mormon may have been more interested in trying to preserve the meaning of the text that Mormon discovered as he read it (and that would include keeping the partial ambiguity of these unknown words).

If that was his intention, and that is the intention you think the translator of the BoM was trying to keep at the cost of knowing what the word even means, then Mormon's intention has been completely ignored because we don't have ambiguity, we have ignorance. Nietzsche is particularly hard to translate from German to English because he plays with words often to give those words a particular ambiguity that is always fun to read. Someone translating Nietzsche to English doesn't write words that have no meaning in English or words that English-speaking readers can't google, or simply erases nouns and phrases. The suggestion you made earlier that if one seeks clarity in a translation one would simply erase the words one doesn't understand is preposterous. Transliteration is definitely a viable option here if no such word exists to try to give a more clear text while maintaining a text, of course.

I'm confused about something else. You said before that "Simply put, I don't find this argument convincing. If Mormon was actually worried about having a word in there that he didn't know what it meant, then he could have excluded the text." I don't know if you actually think Mormon didn't know what "sheum" meant or not, but if you do you can't say he didn't know what "sheum" was and that he was trying to preserve the ambiguity "sheum" provided at the same time because he wouldn't have known what it meant to begin with.

I'll answer the rest later on, if you don't mind. Just too tired, hungry, and hangover.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

Where I start from is the obvious issue that there is a word ("sheum") in the text that seems to be transliterated. It isn't English. We can go over a list of reasons why a transliterated word might occur in a translated text. I have given a couple of those reasons in this thread. These aren't simply pulled out of thin air - they represent analogous occurrences. So I treat the Book of Mormon as a translation, and I explore reasons why I might find transliterations in the text, right? In the OP, you made the following points:

2: 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.

From what information we have, he would simply have read the letters that he saw visually (no need for sound). It was already spelled out for him. He probably did not have any kind of special insight in how to pronounce it.

3: "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?"

But if Joseph is purely a reader (again the "tight" translation model) he doesn't need to know what the symbols are, what they meant, or even what they sounded like. He simply has to read the text that he sees before him. Now this may be an oversimplification of what actually happened, or it may not, but, this is the tight model in a nutshell (and its the model that best describes what I believe happened).

Again, Ben, these comments you quote from me were directed against the loose method. Why do you bring this up again here? We were assuming the tight now, remember?

The question still comes back to your assumptions as to why it should be English that appears.

I'm not assuming it should; I'm just posing some questions and problems that I see with your view and other people's views as they respond the issues I raised in the OP.

You don't expect to find a confusing word in the translation. Therefore its a problem. That seems to me to be the gist of your argument.

I would be an dimwitted if I argued that and like that. I'm pointing out problems with the approaches I've seen as responses to my questions, that's all.

The difference between us is that I don't have this problem with having a confusing word in the text (to the extent that it really is confusing - that is, not knowing what the definition is doesn't keep us from understanding the passasge, or even developing an expectation of what "sheum" means within the context where it occurs).

I told you already I don't think having an unknown word prevents us from understanding the BoM theologically or prevents us from understanding anything of relevance. I find this an interesting problem.

In other words, I can produce what is for me a reasoned explanation of why a word like this might appear in the text, and how it would appear, and how it can be explained in terms of being a translation.

It's weird to see you go back like this when we are in the midst of arguments and reasons. Why do you feel that need? We were discussing your reasons for believing this and you were objecting to my objections, you recall?

What makes you think that God doing these things (through Joseph Smith) provides a better outcome than God doing the things that I suggest in my model?

I consider knowing what "sheum" means rather than not knowing a better outcome, wouldn't you say?

What makes the one better than the other? Is it clarity on the part of the modern reader that is the most preferred outcome (a problem itself, since the longer the time gap between 1830 and the present day readers, the more information gets lost as language changes). Is it a translation that looks first and foremost to preserve the ideas and intentions of the ancient author (Mormon)? These are very relevant questions here because it is how we understand these questions that drives our expectations of the text. And if you understand these questions differently than I do, our disagreement comes at such a fundamental level that the issues in the text almost take a back seat.

As I've proposed and you haven't addressed, providing the transliteration and a translation or closer translations are not mutually exclusive. You keep asking me these questions as if I thought they were mutually exclussive. What reason was so important for God not only to not translate "sheum" in the main text but never to give us a translation or closer translations or the original symbols, etc? You were making a case but now all of a sudden you ran out of gas or somethin'.

Unless of course we assume in some way that the text is a real translation and work our way backward from that. And of course, if you don't think there really was a translation through the power of God, we are left with the issues I already raised.

Again, Benjamin, I don't need to assume the power of God had anything to do for me to reason what would follow if it did. What's confusing about that concept?

Right, but the answer to this question seems overly obvious in a "tight" translation model right? Joseph didn't choose anything about what to write.

Whoever the translator was.

When translating such a work (and I know that I am using a relatively strong example here) you don't go through the process in a way that tries to restore clarity to the text. You translate it in a way the maintains the increasing chaos and confusion so that the resulting translation remains true to the author's vision in the original work.

This is not relevant unless you think that's what was the case. Otherwise, I don't get why you bring that up. We are talking about a particular case were a book was prepared for future nations to be read and what explanations seem more plausible.

These two words (we really should include the other as well) are not so significant that it makes the reading difficult, or understanding impossible.

Because, clearly, I've been arguing that they do even when I've repeatedly told you that's not what I think.

We don't have ignorance. I keep raising this point. The English language is large. I suspect there are words I don't understand. But, finding a word I don't know doesn't mean that I can't guess from the context what that word means. Take the word "sheum" for example - this is the context in which it occurs:

"And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land."

So from this context, I can clearly expect both "neas" and "sheum" to be domesticated crops that require planting using seeds. They seem to be grain as opposed to fruit. This is not complete ignorance.

Again, I know we can safely say sheum was a grain. Again, I realize this word doesn't prevent us from understanding the BoM as a text or as a theological message. Again, I'm not saying we have complete ignorance. That we don't have complete ignorance doesn't make the arguments you have presented here any better.

So let's not pretend that this is some sort of momentous text on which our doctrine and theology are reliant necessitating an absolutely accurate understanding.

I never said it was necessary for anything.

Your use of the phrase "We have ignorance." confuses me then.

How confusing is it that we don't know what sheum is for you?

Really? What is the basis for your assessment of Mormon's intention other than your personal preference?

YOU proposed what it was, Benjamin, and I mentioned problems with that. Address the issue.

By the way, with so many misunderstandings and not addressing my arguments, I'll answer your questions about my actual beliefs. I'm not getting much that indicates you are really trying now so what the heck.

I'm an ex-LDS atheist. I don't believe in miracles, spirits, and things like that. Feel free to get distracted by this as much as you want.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Alvino

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alvino writes:

On the other hand, Mormon clearly intended the text to be read as clearly as possible and it seems to me he would have prefered having the correct English translation of that word rather than an unknown double-transliteration.

See, this is an assumption I simply don't accept.

There is a good example from the Book of Mormon (one that I discuss in an article I have written that is slowly working its way through the review process for publication). It comes in 2 Nephi Chapter 25. In verse 1 we read this:

Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.

So, Nephi is aware that Isaiah is hard for his people (his audience) to understand. But he isn't just aware that it is hard for them, he understands why it is hard for them (2 Nephi 25:5-6):

I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. … but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about;

So, there is this bit of knowledge that is necessary to understand Isaiah, and Nephi knows some of this because of his education. But why is it hard for his people to understand? This from verses 2 and 6:

For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; … But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews;

Nephi has deliberately prevented his people from being able to understand Isaiah by keeping back from them that information that would allow them to understand the text.

So you can't simply say to me that there is this automatic assumption that clarity in the text is some kind of preferred model for interpretation. In fact, Nephi replaces this understanding of the text based on a historically and culturally conditioned reading with a reading that "likens the scriptures" unto themselves. They create new meaning from an old text - certainly not a meaning that Isaiah intended. And, of course, if we in the pursuit of understanding Nephi return to a culturally conditioned and historically based reading of Isaiah, we in fact turn against the reading that Nephi intended for us to get through his text. When we talk about intentions of the authors, the authors of the Book of Mormon had a great deal to say - and none of it resembles this preference you seem to be displaying here.

If we say Mormon wanted to transliterate the original word to his language, it doesn't follow from that that Mormon wanted what he was writing to be transliterated instead of translated, or that he wanted no one to translate his transliteration.

But it also doesn't stand to reason that he wanted it to be translated, or that he expected it to be. You are basing this idea on an expectation of the text and its purpose. And while Mormon does speak of his purposes in producing this text to some extent, this idea of clarity (in the fashion that you use it) never comes up. If anything, Mormon and Moroni speak of turning to the spirit for understanding. And Nephi speaks of likening the scriptures unto ourselves. These are not reading strategies that require absolute clarity.

Also, if we take the translator (God?) to be taking into account use 2 of Mormon's intentions, why not provide a translation of the word anyways as a sidenote? As I mentioned already, that we mirror Mormon's actions of transliterating the word instead of translating doesn't explain why the translator (God) wouldn't have also provided the English translation or closer translations of what "sheum" denotes also.

Why the need? Doesn't the idea of sidenotes (by God) indicate more about the text? Wouldn't we expect to see them not just there, but everywhere? And if we see one sidenote (or even several) does that indicate somehow then that everywhere we don't see these sidenotes that a sidenote isn't necessary and that absolute clarity already exists? I don't think this is a very well thought through alternative - particularly given the non-critical nature of the text in question.

OK, if this was his intention, then it is obvious that having the correct translation in English is the way to go, just as translating the BoM is better than to transliterate the whole thing.

No. Obvious to you, it certainly isn't obvious to me - just restating your position isn't doing anything to move me along here.

If that was his intention, and that is the intention you think the translator of the BoM was trying to keep at the cost of knowing what the word even means, then Mormon's intention has been completely ignored because we don't have ambiguity, we have ignorance.

I disagree - and I also disagree with you over the question of ignorance. We don't have ignorance, we have ambiguity. I simply call it the way I see it here.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Again, Ben, these comments you quote from me were directed against the loose method. Why do you bring this up again here? We were assuming the tight now, remember?

Because you aren't really separating the two issues out. You consistently conflate them - even though you suggest that you are, it isn't coming out in your explanations, in the language you use, or in any other way. And, as I keep pointing out, all of these questions still apply in a loose versus tight translation model - in the tight model, we simply exclude Joseph Smith. But that doesn't mean that we don't have to still ask all of these same questions about the translator (who is then God, right?). So we can still talk about the relevance of the meaning of word in English, the relevance of the meaning of the word in a source text used by Mormon, and Mormon's treatment of that source, whether we are referring to Joseph Smith as a translator or to God as a translator. The problem occurs when we confuse the roles. In a loose translation, its Joseph making the determination of how to translate a passage (assisted by the power of God), in a tight translation, it is just the power of God making that determination.

In the long run though, we have this problem. You want to say that Joseph Smith or God, or whoever does the "translation" would have because of this need for clarity, a need to translate "sheum" in a manner in which the original referent is provided as a modern English term, so that those familiar with English contemporary with Joseph Smith would have completely understood the referent. That is akin to my example of trying to change Marco Polo's unicorn into a rhinoceros. And while it may help from a certain perspective, it doesn't always help from another perspective. In other places we have this same problem (with the notable difference that we aren't using transliterations). We do have an English translation, but that translation doesn't give us the clarity that would come by using contemporary English to describe the original referent. So while its easy to say that this is what should have happened, it isn't what happened, and it is isn't what happened with some consistency. So, I think in some ways we can say that if there is a translator and a translation process, then not translating "sheum" seems at least a bit consistent with the rest of the translation.

I consider knowing what "sheum" means rather than not knowing a better outcome, wouldn't you say?

No. I already went through this with you. We all use hierarchies when looking at potential meanings when reading texts. You and I seem to prioritize that hierarchy very differently. So, given the context, not knowing what "sheum" means isn't a worse outcome than knowing what it means.

As I've proposed and you haven't addressed, providing the transliteration and a translation or closer translations are not mutually exclusive. You keep asking me these questions as if I thought they were mutually exclussive. What reason was so important for God not only to not translate "sheum" in the main text but never to give us a translation or closer translations or the original symbols, etc? You were making a case but now all of a sudden you ran out of gas or somethin'.

I gave my reason. It was simply that in translating Mormon's text, there was no translation for "Sheum". I thought it was pretty straight forward. It's not that its that important (any more than you could argue that translating it would have been that important). In answering your question though, I deal with the issue of Mormon as the author. What did Mormon mean when he included the word "sheum"? If the word is foreign to Mormon, then he doesn't mean anything by it (let alone some modern English referent that would allows us to understand whatever was recorded in the record of Zeniff). This generally speaking follows present day practices of translation. If in a German text, someone uses a foreign word (like something French, or Latin), a translator doesn't translate that foreign word into English - they only translate the German - they leave the foreign words intact as a way of recognizing the intentions of the author who wrote in German. Even more to the point, if that German author was quoting a Spanish text (in Spanish), the translator doesn't translate the quote into English, he leaves it in Spanish. So I am simply suggesting that perhaps God as translator leaves the foreign word alone - since that represents not only what the author did (Mormon) but it also represents what the author intended to do. I don't accept this idea that Mormon had a secondary intention that this word should be translated into English for his future audience, or that clarity at that level was a necessary or desired outcome.

Again, Benjamin, I don't need to assume the power of God had anything to do for me to reason what would follow if it did. What's confusing about that concept?

Because your concept doesn't follow a real world corollary. This is why I call it simply a matter of preference. It requires special pleading about the nature of the Book of Mormon and some sort of implicit (but not discussed) notion of its intention that I don't find really very convincing. Perhaps its just personal preference on my part - but I prefer to see the translation of the Book of Mormon (even if it is a translation made by the power of God) as a translation that we might expect given what we know about translations. Of course, what we end up with is a text just like any other text.

Ben M.

[Alvino]

See, this is an assumption I simply don't accept.

There is a good example from the Book of Mormon (one that I discuss in an article I have written that is slowly working its way through the review process for publication). It comes in 2 Nephi Chapter 25. In verse 1 we read this:

So, Nephi is aware that Isaiah is hard for his people (his audience) to understand. But he isn't just aware that it is hard for them, he understands why it is hard for them (2 Nephi 25:5-6):

So, there is this bit of knowledge that is necessary to understand Isaiah, and Nephi knows some of this because of his education. But why is it hard for his people to understand? This from verses 2 and 6:

Nephi has deliberately prevented his people from being able to understand Isaiah by keeping back from them that information that would allow them to understand the text.

So you can't simply say to me that there is this automatic assumption that clarity in the text is some kind of preferred model for interpretation. In fact, Nephi replaces this understanding of the text based on a historically and culturally conditioned reading with a reading that "likens the scriptures" unto themselves. They create new meaning from an old text - certainly not a meaning that Isaiah intended. And, of course, if we in the pursuit of understanding Nephi return to a culturally conditioned and historically based reading of Isaiah, we in fact turn against the reading that Nephi intended for us to get through his text. When we talk about intentions of the authors, the authors of the Book of Mormon had a great deal to say - and none of it resembles this preference you seem to be displaying here.

I think I now see what the misunderstanding is.

You are talking about interpretation here, but that is not the kind of "clarity" we were speaking of. We were speaking of clarity with regards to translation and what is being translated may or may not be an extremely complicated reading in any language anyways for cultural or historical reasons. I gave the example of translating Nietzsche to English which is hard, but some passages may be obscure as well anyways and a translator would want to convey as much ambiguity in English as Nietzsche does in German (and please don't say, "why do you assume that we want to keep the ambiguity?" because it was you the one who argued for an explanation for transliterating sheum that we take a term Mormon didn't know what grain it was or how to translate it). That's the kind of clarity I meant, or, clarity to see what the text to translate conveys and how it does it. What I meant by "being clear" was to keep as close to the original as possible, not transforming or altering the original or paraphrasing it to make it clearer to a different audience.

Now, try to address this issue taking into account the "clarity" I'm speaking of, which is what my criticism of your position (on this particular issue) is based on.

But it also doesn't stand to reason that he wanted it to be translated, or that he expected it to be.

Well, you pick your view, Ben. You are the one who relied for your position on the idea that the translator took some of Mormon's intentions. Anyways God ended up transliterating it, right? And your were saying that he was taking Mormon's intentions into account. This is your problem and I'm only pointing it out to you.

You are pretty much replying to your position here, not to my criticism.

You are basing this idea on an expectation of the text and its purpose.

No, on your idea of what was going on and criticizing that. You thought Mormon's intentions to be relevant and argued that that is a plausible explanation for why "sheum" was transliterated in English. That's the view I was attacking.

And while Mormon does speak of his purposes in producing this text to some extent, this idea of clarity (in the fashion that you use it) never comes up. If anything, Mormon and Moroni speak of turning to the spirit for understanding. And Nephi speaks of likening the scriptures unto ourselves. These are not reading strategies that require absolute clarity.

I agree. Yet again, I wasn't speaking of clarity of reading but of translation. You confused the two.

Why the need?

No need anymore than the translator had a need of translating all those grains mentioned along with sheum. If one is to translate a text, however, it seem like one wants to, well, translate it. You were the one explaining why it wasn't, remember, Ben? You can't now turn and ask "Well, why the need to translate it?" after arguing for a plausible explanation why it wasn't translated, according to you.

I disagree - and I also disagree with you over the question of ignorance. We don't have ignorance, we have ambiguity. I simply call it the way I see it here.

I don't know what calling it like this really changes at the end of the day, so let's go with ambiguity. You and I can agree we ignore the things we ignore anyways.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Alvino

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think, Alvino, that the discussion has gone as far as its going to go. Apparently, my explanation isn't getting through. So, I think we can simply disagree and be done with it.

Ben M.

[Alvino]

Because you aren't really separating the two issues out. You consistently conflate them - even though you suggest that you are, it isn't coming out in your explanations, in the language you use, or in any other way.

Again, whoever the translator was. God in this case since we are assuming the tight only.

No. I already went through this with you. We all use hierarchies when looking at potential meanings when reading texts. You and I seem to prioritize that hierarchy very differently. So, given the context, not knowing what "sheum" means isn't a worse outcome than knowing what it means.

Actually, Ben, you haven't stated why having a translation of "sheum" isn't better than having a word we don't really know what it means. I mentioned to you that even if we choose to leave "sheum" in the main body of the text, we can (or God) still provide a correct translation of the word as a sidenote. All you really said to that were some questions that don't answer whether a simple sidenote would have been better or not. You said,

"Wouldn't we expect to see them not just there, but everywhere?"

No, because the other words are not transliterations.

"And if we see one sidenote (or even several) does that indicate somehow then that everywhere we don't see these sidenotes that a sidenote isn't necessary and that absolute clarity already exists?"

Of course not, unless you consider every translated word in the BoM already to be absolutely clear, which is silly.

Brother, I hope you don't have this problem when reading a translated book and see a footnote and start wondering whether the fact that there are no more footnotes than the ones there are is a good argument against the footnotes that there are!

I gave my reason. It was simply that in translating Mormon's text, there was no translation for "Sheum". I thought it was pretty straight forward.

Wait, are you saying here that the reason we don't have an English translation now is because the word "sheum" didn't exist in English? That's definitely not what you have been arguing for here, Benjamin.

This generally speaking follows present day practices of translation. If in a German text, someone uses a foreign word (like something French, or Latin), a translator doesn't translate that foreign word into English - they only translate the German - they leave the foreign words intact as a way of recognizing the intentions of the author who wrote in German. Even more to the point, if that German author was quoting a Spanish text (in Spanish), the translator doesn't translate the quote into English, he leaves it in Spanish.

A German translator doesn't transliterate to German from Spanish the words that are written in Spanish, either, which is more similar to what we have today. We don't have "sheum" in whatever language Mormon wrote the word, so the translator ended up not doing what you say here a translator would have done. And, once again, that we want to leave a word in Spanish doesn't mean we wouldn't write the translation as a sidenote or footnote, specially when it is a language no one alive knows what it is. I explained this already, Ben.

I don't accept this idea that Mormon had a secondary intention that this word should be translated into English for his future audience, or that clarity at that level was a necessary or desired outcome.

I made some clarifications for you about the intention issue and you didn't bother to address them. I never proposed Mormon wanted the text to be translated into English, Ben, that's obvious from what I've written. About clarity, I've made clarifications on that also. I hope you at least address those.

This is why I call it simply a matter of preference.

I'm not surprised you think this given that you haven't gotten my criticisms straight in the first place and repeatedly fail to address important criticisms.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

So, I think we can simply disagree and be done with it.

I'm also kind of tired of this discussion.

For the sake of the 2 people reading this little exchange, do you want to give some concluding remarks? I'll give you the last word.

[CV75]

Actually, Ben, you haven't stated why having a translation of "sheum" isn't better than having a word we don't really know what it means. I mentioned to you that even if we choose to leave "sheum" in the main body of the text, we can (or God) still provide a correct translation of the word as a sidenote. All you really said to that were some questions that don't answer whether a simple sidenote would have been better or not. You said,

Because we, like Joseph Smith, are being exposed to the many aspects (and results) of the revelatory translation process.

[MormonMason]

Adieu is an English word that has fallen into disuse in recent years.

It also has an Egyptian equivalent. The original probably read snb.tj. Here is a scan from a page of an Egyptian-German Lexicon with German-English Dictionary entry side-by-side:

Edited February 24, 2013 by MormonMason

[canard78]

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.

I appreciate the credibility Brant Gardner brings his work by his willingness to dismiss evidences that don't carry weight.

So proper names are spelled out and the rest is loose? Works for me. It would need to be very loose in places. And even a few names are a bit dubious and perhaps a 'rushed' spelling of a name that sounds close. Timothy for example is anachronistic... Unless is was a misheard Nephite name that gets mispelt into the Greek version by Joseph (or the scribe). But it's a bit of mental gymnastics to get there.

[canard78]

It also has an Egyptian equivalent. The original probably read snb.tj. Here is a scan from a page of an Egyptian-German Lexicon with German-English Dictionary entry side-by-side:

How about in reformed Egyptian?

Joseph wasn't directly translating characters, he had his head in a hat and was looking a rock he found in a well. Based on what hints we get from Oliver's translation advice, Joseph seems to have studied it out in his mind first and, if it felt right, it went in the book. It seems he constructed the phrase in his head and dictated it if he felt good about it. That's why there's so much KJV bible in the Book of Mormon, and so much 19thC in it too. He dictated it in his own words as long as it felt right with little to no direct reference to the characters on the plates.

So it probably doesn't matter what Jacob/Mormon may or may not have written down. If Joseph felt Adieu was a fair way for Jacob to sign off, it went in.

But I agree that saying 'eww, there's french in the book of mormon' is among the lamest of all evidences against the Book of Mormon and I still chuckle when I hear that mentioned. That and the 'Jesus born in Jerusalem.' Come on, I think, there's much stickier stuff than that.

[MormonMason]

I appreciate the credibility Brant Gardner brings his work by his willingness to dismiss evidences that don't carry weight.

So proper names are spelled out and the rest is loose? Works for me. It would need to be very loose in places. And even a few names are a bit dubious and perhaps a 'rushed' spelling of a name that sounds close. Timothy for example is anachronistic... Unless is was a misheard Nephite name that gets mispelt into the Greek version by Joseph (or the scribe). But it's a bit of mental gymnastics to get there.

I don't necessarily see it that way. Usage of names is a translator's prerogative. Quite a few names in even the Old Testament are Greek, Anglicized Greek and even based upon Latin names rather than Hebrew names in the underlying text.

A few examples off the top of my head are: Eve, Solomon, Job, Moses, Aaron, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and so forth. Their original names are Chawwah, Shlomoh, 'Eyob, Mosheh, Aharon, Yesha'yahu, Yechezqe'l, and so forth.

And, was it really an anachronism even if Joseph Smith hadn't simply exercised such a prerogative? The Greeks had had contact with Palestine in the time of Lehi. It is a name that could have been known to Lehi, particularly if he were a member of the merchant class (the mention of his riches in the Book of Mormon implies this because merchants and artisans skilled in metallurgy became wealthy in Lehi's time). It is evident that he had the means to travel on a moment's notice, which is something we would expect of ancient merchants.

Edited February 24, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

How about in reformed Egyptian?

Joseph wasn't directly translating characters, he had his head in a hat and was looking a rock he found in a well. Based on what hints we get from Oliver's translation advice, Joseph seems to have studied it out in his mind first and, if it felt right, it went in the book. It seems he constructed the phrase in his head and dictated it if he felt good about it. That's why there's so much KJV bible in the Book of Mormon, and so much 19thC in it too. He dictated it in his own words as long as it felt right with little to no direct reference to the characters on the plates.

So it probably doesn't matter what Jacob/Mormon may or may not have written down. If Joseph felt Adieu was a fair way for Jacob to sign off, it went in.

But I agree that saying 'eww, there's french in the book of mormon' is among the lamest of all evidences against the Book of Mormon and I still chuckle when I hear that mentioned. That and the 'Jesus born in Jerusalem.' Come on, I think, there's much stickier stuff than that.

It would likely have been the same in reformed Egyptian. Reformed Egyptian, by the way, was the script in which they wrote the Egyptian language, which language itself would have been based upon Late Egyptian grammar. The script was a hybrid of Hieratic and Demotic (which would be expected because Lehi would have learned Egyptian during the time of transition from Hieratic to Demotic). It was also this time when a number of Egyptian words dropped their determinatives and became single character words. This also means that this form of script even at the time would have saved space, precisely like the Book of Mormon states. I'd love to see how Joseph Smith came up with that one and got it right when nobody in America knew how to read either Hieratic or Demotic (or, for that matter, Hieroglyphic) Egyptian in his day.

But, I agree with the rest of what you wrote. Have you by chance taken time to read the Ante-Nicene Fathers or the writings of Josephus as translated by Whiston? You will find Adieu in Josephus and a fairly good number of Bible passages that are nearly word-for-word those of the King James Version in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. And these were academic translations.

Having read these myself I tend to cut Joseph Smith some slack when I see similar things evident in the Book of Mormon. What is most striking is that he did it without the benefit of a Bible. At the time he translated the Book of Mormon, he had no Bible and he had his face buried in a hat much of the time, making it impossible to read even if he had one. He did not obtain his own Bible until he went out and bought one with the assistance of Oliver Cowdery on October 8, 1829. The only other times he got access to one was when he had to have someone go down the road to borrow one from a neighbor to settle disputes. Other than that there never were books or papers near him during that time.

Edited February 24, 2013 by MormonMason

[cdowis]

canard proclaims

Timothy for example is anachronistic...

You are mistaken.

Nibley points out that Tyre was a Greek colony in the time period of Lehi -- take a look at a map for its location, and had a king called Timothy. They were were known as a seafaring people throughout the Mediterranean sea. He suggests that it is very likely the Mulekites used Greek sailors to get to the Americas. (personal communication) You will notice that the name Timothy does not show up until after the Nephites discovered the Mulekites.

FWIW, the Discovery Channel several years ago had a documentary of DNA research in Chicago which showed that a woman from Greece had a common ancestor with a pure-blooded Amerindian.

You really need to be careful when you use "anachronism" as it relates to the BOM. You will often end up with egg on your face. The text of the BOM demonstrates that Joseph Smith spent decades in the Middle East studying its geography, language and history. NHM, the valley of Lemuel, names such as sheum, Pahoran, Paanchi indicate such extensive research beyond the possibility of coincidence. And now Timothy.

Edited February 25, 2013 by cdowis

[Alvino]

So proper names are spelled out and the rest is loose? Works for me.

I'm not sure if you are trying to address something about the thread topic but I don't think you are. I mean, you aren't explaining how it is we have "sheum" in there if JS received it spelled out. Why not a translation? If it didn't exist in English, why not in some other language we can recognize since we have a French word in the BoM? Why not closer translations as a footnote or something? What do you think is a good explanation?

[MormonMason]

I'm not sure if you are trying to address something about the thread topic but I don't think you are. I mean, you aren't explaining how it is we have "sheum" in there if JS received it spelled out. Why not a translation? If it didn't exist in English, why not in some other language we can recognize since we have a French word in the BoM? Why not closer translations as a footnote or something? What do you think is a good explanation?

Adieu may have originated as a French word but the only reason the word was in the Book of Mormon was because it was part of Joseph Smith's English vocabulary. That word actually has been part of the English language for centuries. Names of difficult things to dictate for Joseph were spelled out during the translation. Where Joseph Smith's English language vocabulary failed him we get things like sheum and curelom. The 'm' ending on names after Mosiah typically is a feature of Jaredite terminology, by the way.

[Alvino]

Adieu may have originated as a French word but the only reason the word was in the Book of Mormon was because it was part of Joseph Smith's English vocabulary.

Are you saying it wouldn't have been in the English translation had JS's vocabulary not included it? It seems not since you also say JS was given spelled out words when his vocabulary didn't include a translation for a term from the source language. If JS could receive words he had never heard of before, why should we think this particular world wouldn't have been given to him had he not known it?

That word actually has been part of the English language for centuries.

That's fine. I was exaggerating there.

Names of difficult things to dictate for Joseph were spelled out during the translation. Where Joseph Smith's English language vocabulary failed him we get things like sheum and curelom.

I'm also not sure whether you are trying to answer the OP issues, MM.

Why not get the English translation for what "sheum" denotes even if JS doesn't now such English word given that he, apparently, could receive words not in his vocabulary, for example, "sheum" and "curelom"?

Edited February 25, 2013 by Alvino

[MormonMason]

Are you saying it wouldn't have been in the English translation had JS's vocabulary not included it? It seems not since you also say JS was given spelled out words when his vocabulary didn't include a translation for a term from the source language. If JS could receive words he had never heard of before, why should we think this particular world wouldn't have been given to him had he not known it?

Names were spelled out, not English words. And, yes, I am saying that it would not have been included had it not been in Joseph Smith's vocabulary. In either case it would not have mattered since in Joseph Smith's day there was no English equivalent. God did not use Joseph Smith like a typewriter. He did not with the OT and NT writers, either. And, even with academic translators their translations will only be as complex as their vocabularies.

I'm also not sure whether you are trying to answer the OP issues, MM.

Why not get the English translation for what "sheum" denotes even if JS doesn't now such English word given that he, apparently, could receive words not in his vocabulary, for example, "sheum" and "curelom"?

Because there were no English equivalents for sheum and curelom. He may have seen how to transliterate those but that is not the same as being given an English equivalent that doesn't exist and it is not the coining of a new English term. Even today we do not know what those are. We have an approximation to the meaning of sheum in modern times but not the others. In addition, in modern translations of ancient text into English we often find transliterations when no English equivalents exist. That is standard of practice even today among translators of these texts, religious or otherwise.

Edited February 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[Alvino]

Names were spelled out, not English words.

A few people here have taken a more tight approach to the translation process but if this is what you go with, all right. Can I ask you how you know this? If there is enough evidence for knowledgeable people to take a tight approach rather than the loose (even with regards to English words), then it seems to me rather strange that you personally can even go so far as to say that no English word was spelled out. That seems, on the face of it, suspicious, so, what makes you think this? Also, do you mean by "names" proper names and some nouns?

In either case it would not have mattered since in Joseph Smith's day there was no English equivalent.

How do you know this since we don't know what "sheum" was?

God did not use Joseph Smith like a typewriter. He did not with the OT and NT writers, either. And, even with academic translators their translations will only be as complex as their vocabularies.

This by itself doesn't tell me much because I don't know how much to think the "gift and power of God" can go or went. Why should we think that God wouldn't give or teach JS a word he didn't know before yet the power of God gave JS understanding into a lost language he didn't know before, still? Again, though, saying JS's translation is as complex as his vocabulary is wrong because "sheum" wasn't in his vocabulary.

Because there were no English equivalents for sheum and curelom.

How do you know this since we don't know what "sheum" means?

He may have seen how to transliterate those but that is not the same as being given an English equivalent that doesn't exist and it is not the coining of a new English term.

I didn't know you believed there was no English word for "sheum" when I asked that. Now I know.

Even today we do not know what those are.

But you do know, apparently, that there is no English word for it. How?

We have an approximation to the meaning of sheum in modern times but not the others. In addition, in modern translations of ancient text into English we often find transliterations when no English equivalents exist. That is standard of practice even today among translators of these texts, religious or otherwise.

And, you would agree, a translator wouldn't transliterate a word nobody but herself knew without any clarification for us to know what it means, even if no translation actually exists. A translator would normally give approximate translations in the target language or some description of it so that we know what the word denotes. (By the way, I wonder whether you believe JS knew what "sheum" meant. Did JS receive the understanding of what it meant plus the transliteration or just the transliteration? If JS received in his understanding what "sheum" meant, then it seems God can (and did) teach JS new words in the translation process so we would have another reason to reject the idea that the BoM's translation is as complex as the vocabulary of JS)

Edited February 25, 2013 by Alvino

[canard78]

I'm not sure if you are trying to address something about the thread topic but I don't think you are. I mean, you aren't explaining how it is we have "sheum" in there if JS received it spelled out. Why not a translation? If it didn't exist in English, why not in some other language we can recognize since we have a French word in the BoM? Why not closer translations as a footnote or something? What do you think is a good explanation?

If sheum was a proper name of something that doesn't an English name and that (if Joseph 'saw' while he translated) then I guess it works.

To be honest, I would have thought that if Joseph were fabricating he wouldn't have thrown in a bunch of random words in. Why not just use the English one?

And we don't really have a french word in the BoM in the way you're suggesting.

I included a random Welsh gair (sorry, word) in the sentence, that would be a bit odd as my intended audience don't understand it. If people were saying adieu (or adoo) in 19thC then it's fine to be there. If instead he'd used 'hwyl fawr' (a Welsh farewell word that has no meaning to him) it would have been odd.

[Alvino]

If sheum was a proper name of something that doesn't an English name and that (if Joseph 'saw' while he translated) then I guess it works.

There are problems with this, as I've mentioned. First of all, I don't see how you could argue (though you can state) that "sheum" didn't have an English translation unless you just beg the question. "We don't have the translation so there must not have been one"?

Secondly, no responsible translator would just leave a transliterated word no one knows while translating a document. Why not a footnote with closer translations so that we know what grain it is? If one wants to leave the main body of the text intact, one can do that but, why not clarification or the original word or something better? It seems weird to me.

To be honest, I would have thought that if Joseph were fabricating he wouldn't have thrown in a bunch of random words in. Why not just use the English one?

Not if you want to sound a bit more authentic. I'm not saying JS was lying but if I were to lie about something like this, I would want to give some words that sounded ancient.

And we don't really have a french word in the BoM in the way you're suggesting.

I included a random Welsh gair (sorry, word) in the sentence, that would be a bit odd as my intended audience don't understand it.

That's why having "sheum" is weird. The intended audience is all of us and none of us know what it is.

If people were saying adieu (or adoo) in 19thC then it's fine to be there. If instead he'd used 'hwyl fawr' (a Welsh farewell word that has no meaning to him) it would have been odd.

(note: but JS did do what you call odd here. Actually, he did something even more strange than it would be odd for you to write 'hwyl fawr' to this audience since he wrote something none of us know what it is, namely, "sheum")

I really have no problem with "adieu", though you should say that JS came up with it, somehow, right? You don't want to say that JS didn't know what "adieu" was. That the word adieu is there would only be a problem if you say JS didn't know what it meant.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Alvino

[MormonMason]

A few people here have taken a more tight approach to the translation process but if this is what you go with, all right. Can I ask you how you know this? If there is enough evidence for knowledgeable people to take a tight approach rather than the loose (even with regards to English words), then it seems to me rather strange that you personally can even go so far as to say that no English word was spelled out. That seems, on the face of it, suspicious, so, what makes you think this? Also, do you mean by "names" proper names and some nouns?

Proper names were spelled out. I know this from examination of the manuscripts and from eyewitness testimony.

How do you know this since we don't know what "sheum" was?

It does not occur in either the 1806 or 1828 English dictionaries. It also does not occur in x language-English lexicons available to Joseph Smith.

This by itself doesn't tell me much because I don't know how much to think the "gift and power of God" can go or went. Why should we think that God wouldn't give or teach JS a word he didn't know before yet the power of God gave JS understanding into a lost language he didn't know before, still? Again, though, saying JS's translation is as complex as his vocabulary is wrong because "sheum" wasn't in his vocabulary.

No because transliteration is not translation. There was no English equivalent. Period. If there were there would have been some evidence of that.

How do you know this since we don't know what "sheum" means?

Today in one language that is not English we know TODAY that it is some sort of term for a grain. That term itself was unknown in Joseph Smith's time. We can know this by consulting linguistic references. We can know this by checking what was available in Joseph Smith's day. Having looked I know that this information it too recent for Joseph Smith to have been aware of it. One can only deduce that it is something that could be eaten by reading the Book of Mormon.

But you do know, apparently, that there is no English word for it. How?

Try to find Curelom in OED--or in any other standard English dictionary. I could be wrong but I do not recall ever seeing it there or elsewhere. It certainly did not exist in dictionaries from the period in question. If it had existed in English it would have been there. If there had been an equivalent in English it is likely that Joseph Smith would have used that term.

And, you would agree, a translator wouldn't transliterate a word nobody but herself knew without any clarification for us to know what it means, even if no translation actually exists. A translator would normally give approximate translations in the target language or some description of it so that we know what the word denotes. (By the way, I wonder whether you believe JS knew what "sheum" meant. Did JS receive the understanding of what it meant plus the transliteration or just the transliteration? If JS received in his understanding what "sheum" meant, then it seems God can (and did) teach JS new words in the translation process so we would have another reason to reject the idea that the BoM's translation is as complex as the vocabulary of JS)

BS. I have read examples of such in translation literature over the years where terms are left transliterated rather than translated, even in academic literature, because there was no known English equivalent. For the longest time even with the Book of Ezekiel there were as many as 48 words that weren't translated at all because there were no known equivalents and the original Hebrew terms had meanings unknown to translators.

In other cases, people just 'winged it' and stuck any old thing in there, or even altered the translation into something it isn't just to try to have a smooth translation. An example can be seen in an African translation of a passage from Psalm 23. Since people in a certain place in Africa had never seen sheep they would not know how to understand a passage in that Psalm mentioning shepherds. So, rather than the Lord being a shepherd in that translation he is a goatherd.

I am not sure whether Joseph Smith himself knew what sheum meant--or curelom, for that matter. Joseph Smith in any case did not feel free to speculate and did not in every case place an English equivalent in the text. He never explained his complete methodology and he certainly did not expound upon the meaning of the words in question. When people asked the methodology he gave few details. Since transliteration is not translation, the Book of Mormon is exactly as complex as was Joseph Smith's vocabulary. In fact, as he learned more vocabulary his own writings increased vocabulary-richness, as did revelations and later translations coming from him.

And, besides this, Joseph Smith was not a professional linguist. He was a backwoods, farm-hand with very limited education. If you think there was an English equivalent for sheum in his own day that could have been known to him, by all means do tell....

[MormonMason]

By the way, Alvino, while I have your attention, what do you think about the following English translation of from chapter XX of The Travels of Marco Polo, The Venetian? Concerning the people of Kobiam he writes: "They have plenty of iron, and accarum, and andanicum." Have you ever figured out what Marco Polo meant by the other two names? I know that the translator thought maybe andanicum might be some sort of corruption for antimony but antimony is mentioned a line or two later in a list of goods in the same place. Have scholars finally learned the exact English equivalents to these two untranslated words? What kind of translator would leave such words untranslated for the English reader without providing some sort of exact equivalent for them all instead of leaving us with a transliteration? Or, would you rather engage further in your double standard?

Here are the pages for the interested reader:

Edited February 25, 2013 by MormonMason