Questions About Js'S Translation Procedure Of The Bom.

[Alvino]

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

I didn't ask you if proper names were spelled out. I asked you, how do you know no English word was spelled out?

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.

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

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.

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.

I was not saying there that "sheum" was a word in some language in JS's time, MM.

Let's say @#$#@ is a word in a lost language and we see a transliteration of it in one text in English. We don't know what that word means. Can we say there is no translation in English for the transliteration? No, because you don't even know what the transliteration means so you can't say there is no equivalent in English. Got it?

You say what "sheum" points to (an unspecified grain) had no English equivalent in JS's time but, how would you know this if you don't even know what "sheum" points to in the first place? It might have pointed to one grain or another but, from those that it could be pointing to, some might have English equivalents and others might not. Since you don't know which specific grain "sheum" points to or denotes, then you also don't know whether it has an English equivalent.

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.

You have to get clearer than this, MM. What you say here is false given other statements you've made here. You can't say that the translation of "sheum" would have been in the BoM had it been in the English language and say the BoM translation couldn't have been more complex than JS's vocabulary. The reason is because JS didn't know all English words (add to that how uneducated you say he was). Therefore, it is possible, given what you've said, that there is an English equivalent of "sheum" and JS didn't know about it so he might not have included it because of that, and not because there just wasn't such an equivalent in the English language. You have to pick a side. Is the BoM's English vocabulary limited to JS's vocabulary or to the English language as a whole?

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.

But I didn't tell you about translators who didn't know the meaning of the transliteration. I said a responsible translator wouldn't just give a transliteration of a term only she knows what it means without any clarification like writing the original symbols or writing closer translations as a sidenote. Now try to address my point with this in mind.

I am not sure whether Joseph Smith himself knew what sheum meant--or curelom, for that matter.

That's fine for now, though I suspect as we go along you're going to have to pick a side in order to be consistent. But let us continue.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Alvino

[MormonMason]

I didn't ask you if proper names were spelled out. I asked you, how do you know no English word was spelled out?

...

Multiple eyewitness testimony. And, what makes you think Joseph Smith knew the meaning of the words he chose to transliterate and spell out rather than to attempt to translate?

The rest of your words only serve to show how ignorant you seem to be relative to translating ancient languages into English--by any means. I had begun to form an opinion that you might be ignorant of how things work in that regard. Now the rest of the words in your latest post make that virtually a certainty for me. They are not worth the time to respond to in detail, therefore, and I have no desire to be sucked into an inane discussion that will go nowhere in the near future. You think Joseph lied. I get that. That position seems to underlie what you are trying to get at in such a discussion as this. But, your understanding of how languages work and how translators handle such situations, even in the mundane world, is lacking.

I have been translating ancient texts into English for a very long time. I have many years of practical experience in such matters. I can tell you that even now there are terms and words and particles in even Greek that are untranslatable into English. A number of words do not have precise equivalents but there are still words that have no equivalent at all in English and--unless English changes in a major way to accommodate such--there never will be. Check any decent Greek Grammar and you will see examples. It is the same with many other languages, even modern languages.

Anyone who knows anything at all about translating ancient and even modern, foreign language texts into English knows this. Your entire attempt to make a point in this area is moot, therefore. Go learn a couple ancient languages and try your hand at translating so you know what you are talking about and so you can understand the points I have made. Until you do you will continue to set up a situation where we appear to talk past each other and waste both our time and that of the readers here.

Edited February 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[Alvino]

Multiple eyewitness testimony.

You have eyewitness testimony that JS didn't have English words spelled out to him in the translation process? CFR, please,

And, what makes you think Joseph Smith knew the meaning of the words he chose to transliterate and spell out rather than to attempt to translate?

I don't, I'm just questioning your position.

The rest of your words only serve to show how ignorant you seem to be relative to translating ancient languages into English--by any means. I had begun to form an opinion that you might be ignorant of how things work in that regard. Now the rest of the words in your latest post make that virtually a certainty for me. They are not worth the time to respond to in detail, therefore, and I have no desire to be sucked into an inane discussion that will go nowhere in the near future. You think Joseph lied. I get that. That position seems to underlie what you are trying to get at in such a discussion as this. But, your understanding of how languages work and how translators handle such situations, even in the mundane world, is lacking.

I asked you if JS knew what "sheum" meant for several reasons, one of them was because it is relevant to whether or not this here makes sense. Depending on how you answer to these issues you have either several examples (examples of translators transliterating words no one knew) or none (examples of a translator knowing what a word means and no one else yet not giving any information on it). Are we talking about a word or words JS didn't understand (so no one understood) or a word JS did understand but found no translation to? That is very much relevant.

I have been translating ancient texts into English for a very long time. I have many years of practical experience in such matters. I can tell you that even now there are terms and words and particles in even Greek that are untranslatable into English. A number of words do not have precise equivalents but there are still words that have no equivalent at all in English and--unless English changes in a major way to accommodate such--there never will be. Check any decent Greek Grammar and you will see examples. It is the same with many other languages, even modern languages.

And, again, this criticism against what I've said works only if you assume JS did NOT know what "sheum" meant. If he did know then these examples don't work because those are examples of no one knowing the meaning of a word, not of a translator who knows what a word means but decides to not translate it for some strange reason. If he didn't know, then you still have to respond to the problems of that view I raised in my other post. You have also been taking conflicting views with regards to the vocabulary of the BoM; I explained that also in post #76.

Anyone who knows anything at all about translating ancient and even modern, foreign language texts into English knows this. Your entire attempt to make a point in this area is moot, therefore. Go learn a couple ancient languages and try your hand at translating so you know what you are talking about and so you can understand the points I have made. Until you do you will continue to set up a situation where we appear to talk past each other and waste both our time and that of the readers here.

You aren't showing you know by avoiding criticism, MM. Do as you will, though.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Alvino

[MormonMason]

You have eyewitness testimony that JS didn't have English words spelled out to him in the translation process? CFR, please,

I do not have access to my books and papers at the moment, being away therefrom, but here is a reference to three of the eyewitnesses as mentioned in a published work:

Spelling of names. David Whitmer and Joseph Knight both refer to control over the spelling, but this seems to be only true for the spelling of names in the Book of Mormon. In an 1875 interview, Whitmer said that Joseph Smith's spelling out words was restricted to names, that Joseph "was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together." Actually, Joseph Smith probably spelled out names letter by letter rather than syllable by syllable (although it is quite possible that David Whitmer used the term "syllable" to mean "letter," the smallest unit of writing).

This spelling out of names is also supported by Emma Smith in an 1856 interview:

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.

(Royal Skousen, Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon, in BYU Studies, vol. 30 (1990), Number 1 - Winter 1990, 52)

Of course, one may take Emma's comment to include long words that weren't names but, then, where does that really leave us since sheum is a name and is hardly a long word? Her words are subject to interpretation, of course.

As to the rest, mindreading is a fruitless endeavor, Alvino. No one alive today can possibly know what was in the mind of Joseph Smith or what he understood or did not understand. It is inconsistent for you to maintain that someone ought to know for a certainty what was therein and what he knew or did not know. Only Fawn Brodie is believed by her fans to have had that ability.

Edited February 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[Alvino]

Mindreading is a fruitless endeavor, Alvino. No one alive today can possibly know what was in the mind of Joseph Smith. It is inconsistent for you to maintain that someone ought to know for a certainty what was therein and what he knew or did not know. Only Fawn Brodie is believed by her fans to have had that ability.

I never expected certainty from anyone. Actually, I believe the evidence you have presented is quite good but for another problem. Unfortunately, it is not evidence of what you wanted to show here and it isn't evidence that addresses the problems I've put forward to you.

[MormonMason]

I never expected certainty from anyone. Actually, I believe the evidence you have presented is quite good but for another problem. Unfortunately, it is not evidence of what you wanted to show here and it isn't evidence that addresses the problems I've put forward to you.

We are talking past each other. Until the situation can be clarified and rectified, it is a continual waste of time. Perhaps you might want to explain in much fully detail what you actually think the problems are and why. Be as detailed and a clear as possible. I am ill today and I am finding it singularly difficult to concentrate at the moment. Maybe you can help pinpoint for us exactly wherein you think there is a problem. Please use scholarly or other clearly written examples supporting your understanding.

[Alvino]

We are talking past each other. Until the situation can be clarified and rectified, it is a continual waste of time. Perhaps you might want to explain in much fully detail what you actually think the problems are and why. Be as detailed and a clear as possible. I am ill today and I am finding it singularly difficult to concentrate at the moment. Maybe you can help pinpoint for us exactly wherein you think there is a problem. Please use scholarly or other clearly written examples supporting your understanding.

My main problem is explained in the OP but my comments have to be tailored to the approach each different respondent uses. Post #76 is as clear as I can repeat as far as my objections to your particular approach are. Please respond to that and if something isn't clear to you after, I hope, a careful reading, then I'll clarify anything you want me to. Just don't make me repeat everything already, for Pete's sake!

[Alvino]

I do not have access to my books and papers at the moment, being away therefrom, but here is a reference to three of the eyewitnesses as mentioned in a published work:

Of course, one may take Emma's comment to include long words that weren't names but, then, where does that really leave us since sheum is a name and is hardly a long word? Her words are subject to interpretation, of course.

You are talking about JS spelling words to the scribe. That wasn't what we were talking about. Since post #67 (which wasn't addressed to you but you responded to it) I was talking about JS receiving the words, never about JS giving spelled out words to the scribe. Look, my issue there was, if JS apparently received (talking about what JS received and NOT what JS was telling the scribe) some words spelled out or in front of him, and he didn't know what "sheum" was but received it, then it means the BoM's vocabulary was not limited to JS's vocabulary (since there is a word there JS didn't know, namely, "sheum"). Why didn't he just receive the English translation of sheum? and a possible answer was that it didn't exist. You actually did say such English word didn't exist and I asked you how you know that. and so on.

Just respond to post #76, that should make things better. And, please, MM, try to be more careful when reading what I post; I certainly do try to with what you write, but it is a bit uncomfortable having to correct what a patient reading from you would have prevented.

[MormonMason]

...

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.

...

That is absolute BS. Translators do it all the time. I have provided an example. Ben has provided examples. I can provide additional examples from other translations of ancient texts that have been published from time to time.

I have tried to understand the point you are trying to make but you leave us to read between the lines. Just come out with it and clearly state your problem in detail. You have not done that. Maybe it is just the fact that I am feeling so ill at the moment (I probably should be in bed resting for the next several days instead of posting here) but I just cannot grasp how you do not understand how even academic translators work with ancient texts filled with unknown terms.

And what makes you think that Joseph Smith necessarily knew precisely what sheum was? Why do you insist that it must have some sort of English meaning or equivalent?

My original point stands, and that is that you need to learn a couple ancient languages and come back to this subject with a fresher perspective that you now lack. As someone who has translated ancient texts over the years, I have perspective on why translators sometimes do as they do. And, these are academic translators, as opposed to Joseph Smith, who wasn't--at all--during the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Edited February 26, 2013 by MormonMason

[Alvino]

That is absolute BS. Translators do it all the time. I have provided an example. Ben has provided examples. I can provide additional examples from other translations of ancient texts that have been published from time to time.

Really? You have an example of a translator being the only person who knows what a term means in a lost language and chose to not clarify anything about it but just decided to transliterate it? (this question I ask might or might not be a good response from me depending on what your stance is on the BoM vocabulary - a problem that I've written to you about and you still ignore)

I have tried to understand the point you are trying to make but you leave us to read between the lines. Just come out with it and clearly state your problem in detail. You have not done that. Maybe it is just the fact that I am feeling so ill at the moment (I probably should be in bed resting for the next several days instead of posting here) but I just cannot grasp how you do not understand how even academic translators work with ancient texts filled with unknown terms.

Can you address what I say in post # 76, MM? That, I think, is pretty clear. Give it a try.

And what makes you think that Joseph Smith necessarily knew precisely what sheum was? Why do you insist that it must have some sort of English meaning or equivalent?

I'm not taking a stance on whether JS knew or not, but that doesn't mean your reasons don't seem as flawed as I've explained to you they are (again, see post #76) nor does me not taking a stance mean you are not ignoring (or simply failing to understand) what I'm saying.

My original point stands, and that is that you need to learn a couple ancient languages and come back to this subject with a fresher perspective that you now lack. As someone who has translated ancient texts over the years, I have perspective on why translators sometimes do as they do. And, these are academic translators, as opposed to Joseph Smith, who wasn't--at all--during the translation of the Book of Mormon.

At least Benjamin was trying to engage the topic. Just go, get better, and come back to try to answer the points raised in post #76. How's that, bud?