1500S Grammar In The Book Of Mormon. Help Me See Why That's "dramatically Exciting"

[canard78]

Why are people (including Dan Peterson) getting excited about apparent 1500s grammar in the BoM. Why is Early Modern English (EmodE) and past tense syntax evidence of ancient (Mesoamerican) origin?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153030887386357&id=634891356

As some of the later commenters point out: the "did go" past tense syntax is found in the writing of Joseph's mother AND his own modern revelations. Stuff he was dictating in 1828-1830 all has examples of this. If we find it in his modern scripture (sections 9 and 10 of D&C) then why is it remarkable when found in the Book of Mormon.

I'm baffled why anyone considers this to be in any way evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity.

Here's the abstract from the article referenced:

In the middle of the 16th century there was a short-lived surge in the use of the auxiliary did to express the affirmative past tense in English, as in Moroni «did arrive» with his army to the land of Bountiful (Alma 52:18). The 1829 Book of Mormon contains nearly 2,000 instances of this particular syntax, using it 27% of the time in past-tense contexts. The 1611 King James Bible — which borrowed heavily from Tyndale’s biblical translations of the 1520s and ’30s — employs this syntax less than 2% of the time. While the Book of Mormon’s rate is significantly higher than the Bible’s, it is close to what is found in other English-language texts written mainly in the mid- to late 1500s. And the usage died out in the 1700s. So the Book of Mormon is unique for its time — this is especially apparent when features of adjacency, inversion, and intervening adverbial use are considered. Textual evidence and syntactic analysis argue strongly against both 19th-century composition and an imitative effort based on King James English. Book of Mormon past-tense syntax could have been achieved only by following the use of largely inaccessible 16th-century writings. But mimicry of lost syntax is difficult if not impossible, and so later writers who consciously sought to imitate biblical style failed to match its did-usage at a deep, systematic level. This includes Ethan Smith who in 1823 wrote View of the Hebrews, a text very different from both the Bible and the Book of Mormon in this respect. The same may be said about Hunt’s The Late War and Snowden’s The American Revolution.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/

The only evidence is the frequency of use, not its use at all.

Given there's evidence that both Joseph and his mother used the particular past tense syntax in their other writing, why should this be remarkable that it's also found in the Book of Mormon?

Edited March 2, 2015 by canard78

[canard78]

Edited link in OP. First didn't work.

[stemelbow]

meh...scholarly folks get all excited an worked up about what seems like small things all the time.

Is there something here that helps to respond to critics who think Joseph wrote the Book with the help of others including the Late War and View of the Hebrews? it may. that can be a bit exciting.

Does it help explain further that we don't really know how the translation took place? It seems to. That can be a bit exciting in a way. "wow...we don't eve know. makes ya wonder how it happened"

[sundrytimes]

Essentially, linguist Stanford Carmack has discovered Early Modern English (EModE) syntax within the BofM (they did preach, they did wax greatly, &c) that implies Joseph Smith did not utilize the KJV nor any other 19c sources available to him at his time (i.e., View of the Hebrews) because EModE had died out in usage before Smith's time. Then, Carmack concludes that God, "consistent with his divine purposes, chose this specific language variety and syntax as a framework for much of the past-tense narrative of the BofM (p184, emphasis mine)." What's left to be answered, if I'm not mistake, is why God chose to use 16c EModE for past-tense syntax in order to speak to an audience in the 19c.

 

Also, I'm confused by the consistency, though, given God's neglect to utilize arcane syntax for the authors of biblical writings. As far as I'm aware, Paul, for example, chose to use the Greek of his time, not to reach back into an arcane version of the lingua franca with which he was communicating.

[canard78]

Essentially, linguist Stanford Carmack has discovered Early Modern English (EModE) syntax within the BofM (they did preach, they did wax greatly, &c) that implies Joseph Smith did not utilize the KJV nor any other 19c sources available to him at his time (i.e., View of the Hebrews) because EModE had died out in usage before Smith's time. Then, Carmack concludes that God, "consistent with his divine purposes, chose this specific language variety and syntax as a framework for much of the past-tense narrative of the BofM (p184, emphasis mine)." What's left to be answered, if I'm not mistake, is why God chose to use 16c EModE for past-tense syntax in order to speak to an audience in the 19c.

Also, I'm confused by the consistency, though, given God's neglect to utilize arcane syntax for the authors of biblical writings. As far as I'm aware, Paul, for example, chose to use the Greek of his time, not to reach back into an arcane version of the lingua franca with which he was communicating.

But that's only impressive if the writings of Joseph and other contemporaries don't use this syntax.

Given there are several sections of the D&C that use this same syntax, is it really so remarkable.

From one of the Facebook comments:

I always find it interesting to compare these sorts of claims to early scripture dictated by Joseph with no claim of ancient origin.

D&C 9, April 1829. Right at the start of the reboot of the translation/dictation process. The EmodE syntax is right there in the first verse:

" 1 Behold, I say unto you, my son, that because you did not translate according to that which you desired of me, and did commence again to write for my servant, Joseph Smith, Jun., even so I would that ye should continue until you have finished this record, which I have entrusted unto him."

There's no claim that this verse is dictated by anyone other than Joseph. There's no claim of ancient origin. It's his own words and his own language. Bushman says:

"The revealed preface to the Book of Commandments specified that the language of the revelations was Joseph Smith’s: “These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” The revelations were not God’s diction, dialect, or native language. They were couched in language suitable to Joseph’s time. The idioms, the grammar, even the tone had to be comprehensible to 1830s Americans. Recognizing the pliability of the revealed words, Joseph freely edited the revelations “by the holy Spirit,” making emendations with each new edition. He thought of his revelations as imprinted on his mind, not graven in stone. With each edition, he patched pieces together and altered the wording to clarify meaning. The words were both his and God’s."

So... If that's the case... What's a EmodE syntax doing in one of the earliest? Maybe the answer's simple: it's not Early Modern English!

[Glenn101]

Why are people (including Dan Peterson) getting excited about apparent 1500s grammar in the BoM. Why is Early Modern English (EmodE) and past tense syntax evidence of ancient (Mesoamerican) origin?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153030887386357&id=634891356

As some of the later commenters point out: the "did go" past tense syntax is found in the writing of Joseph's mother AND his own modern revelations. Stuff he was dictating in 1828-1830 all has examples of this. If we find it in his modern scripture (sections 9 and 10 of D&C) then why is it remarkable when found in the Book of Mormon.

I'm baffled why anyone considers this to be in any way evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity.

Here's the abstract from the article referenced:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/

The only evidence is the frequency of use, not its use at all.

Given there's evidence that both Joseph and his mother used the particular past tense syntax in their other writing, why should this be remarkable that it's also found in the Book of Mormon?

 

It is not the fact that Joseph and his mother, and the KJV, and other writers of the era used that syntax in their writings, it is the fact that such usage was not a prevalent grammatical construct in Joseph's day and locale., the rates would have been much lower. The Book of Mormon usage approximates the usage of a time during the middle to late 1500's. The full article is pretty dry, with a lot of statistics and charts, to make that point.

 

The point being that Joseph, nor any other known writer of the time would not have used that syntax with the frequency that is found in the Book of Mormon.

It's the authorship puzzle again.

 

Glenn

[ERayR]

Maybe this could explain the similarities.

 

http://www.candlestickstudio.com/files/Nephites.pdf

[HappyJackWagon]

To claim that finding 15-16th century syntax in the BoM is proof that JS didn't write it wouldn't the argument also need some level of proof that JS didn't have access to 15-16th century literature? Maybe that syntax wasn't in the KJV of the bible but was it in other popular writings such as Shakespeare plays? If JS or his close associates had any access to this kind of popular writing wouldn't it be possible that JS picked up the syntax from those sources?

 

I'm with the OP. I fail to see how this discovery accomplishes anything at all.

[Uncle Dale]

Stanford Professor Craig Criddle notices some of these linguistic

patterns, and offers some possible explanations in his multi-part

on-line slide show, examining Mormon origins.

 

He acknowledges what has long been pointed out by others --

that there is a language change evident, when we examine

the first three or four books of the Nephite Record, and then

attempt to closely compare their vocabulary and style with

what follows in Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, and the first part of

3rd Nephi. The language changes.

 

Then, resuming in the remainder of 3rd Nephi, and growing in

intensity, up through parts of Ether, and all of Moroni, the book's

language again compares well with 1st Nephi, etc.

 

So -- there are language differences in different parts of the book.

Once the Isaiah, Malachi and Matthew biblical chapters are removed,

these language shifts become even more strikingly evident.

 

Criddle compares that non-biblical three-part remainder with the

vernacular English present in the USA at the beginning of 19th century.

Some portions of the Book of Mormon appear to use the English

variety that a New England Yankee of Puritan ancestry would have

grown up speaking. Other parts more resemble the language we

might expect to hear from the tongue of a Maryland or New Jersey

Roman Catholic. Still other passages resemble the language used

in southwestern Pennsylvania, and in the "Celtic" Appalachians.

 

Some of the language and grammar (or attempted grammar) mimic

what might be called Elizabethan or Jacobin "KLV" English -- still

other portions of the Book of Mormon echo even more archaic

linguistic forms -- the sort of English which a pre-Tudor scholar

might have employed in explaining the Bible --- or what a later

writer, quoting that earlier style of English text might have written.

 

If I'm making it all sound too complicated for anybody to follow --

then welcome to the club of puzzled Book of Mormon narrative

explorers. This is not a simple picture that Criddle attempts to

paint -- but the evidence he presents is compelling.

 

That the 1830 text was the product of multiple writers and of

more than one abridgement, or over-all editorial redaction. So,

into that structure (like a concrete or cement form) the mixture

of language was poured -- and by 1830 had solidified into what

Grandin printed.

 

Why the seeming content of different early 19th century American

varieties of spoken English? Why the seeming content of English

set down in a style pre-dating what we read in the KJV Bible?

 

Interesting questions.

 

And I hope that modern Book of Mormon scholars and investigators

will hold open the explanatory option of Joseph Smith NOT having

been the source of each and every one of those differing examples

of English language appearing in the first book of Mormon scripture.

 

UD

[canard78]

Maybe this could explain the similarities.

http://www.candlestickstudio.com/files/Nephites.pdf

Red herring?

[ERayR]

Red herring?

 

Nope, interesting possibility.

[strappinglad]

Perhaps, as has been postulated by others, Joseph was translating a translation that was made a couple of centuries previously for some unknown reason. More questions, few answers. We must, however keep remembering that Joseph was a genius and had access to all kinds of great literature from the age of 18 on.

[canard78]

Perhaps, as has been postulated by others, Joseph was translating a translation that was made a couple of centuries previously for some unknown reason. More questions, few answers. We must, however keep remembering that Joseph was a genius and had access to all kinds of great literature from the age of 18 on.

This one really strains credibility. You think it's more likely that someone else translated it first in the 1500s? If that's the case, why is so much of the 17th KJV in this translation?

[canard78]

Nope, interesting possibility.

At 60+ pages would you care to give the cliff notes on how it's relevant to the OP?

[ERayR]

At 60+ pages would you care to give the cliff notes on how it's relevant to the OP?

 

The premise is that the Lombards were Hagoths ships that landed in Europe and spread out through out Europe, including England. It is an interesting read.

 

My brilliant connection is the possibility of the english language development being influenced by this intermingling.  Fun maybes.

Edited March 2, 2015 by ERayR

[Uncle Dale]

 

...We must, however keep remembering that Joseph was a genius and had access to all kinds of great literature from the age of 18 on.

.

 

That supposed "access" was very limited, however.

His older brother, Hyrum, had attended classes on

the Dartmouth College campus. Possibly the lad

"borrowed" a few library books from that institution

and forgot to return them. But Hyrum was very young

and seemingly would have had no particular interest

in bring home Josephus or Rev. Clark's Commentary.

 

The Smith family at Palmyra seem to have been very

poor -- and, after they had fully removed to nearby

Manchester, just about every extra penny of their

income would have gone to paying on their mortgage.

 

Lucy and some of her children joined the Presbyterian

church in Palmyra and it is possible that the minister

there loaned her some interesting books. She seems to

have been fairly literate and an able (though not very good)

biography writer.

 

A more promising source of literature for young Joseph would

have been his father's membership in the local Masonic lodge.

Freemasons typically shared all sorts of arcane information

with one another, and in Joseph's youth it would not have been

unusual for such communications between lodge members to

cross over into the realms of astrology, fanciful ancient history,

religious mysteries, conjuring, theology, magic, etc. -- So, that

connection should not be forgotten.

 

I'm less impressed with the idea that young Joseph went about,

obtaining books from local libraries, bookstores, neighbors, etc.

His youthful interests may have not extended much past the

cheap tales of pirates, Sinbad the sailor, and various rogues

that youngsters might have passed back and forth between 

each other at that early date.

 

Still -- one next-door neighbor recalls that the boy had read an

English translation of the Koran. And that's not the sort of 1820s

"comic book" one kid might trade with another for "Captain Kidd"

tales, or stories of ghosts and criminal confessions.

 

Young Joseph would have had limited access to scholarly literature,

and probably limited free time, there on the farm or living with the

Stowels down by the Susquehanna, to have read and memorized

such stuff.

 

No doubt his memory was remarkable, however. If some neighbor

really did loan young Joe a copy of the Koran, or a Swedenborg

book -- he probably could recall its contents months later.

 

UD

[stemelbow]

To claim that finding 15-16th century syntax in the BoM is proof that JS didn't write it wouldn't the argument also need some level of proof that JS didn't have access to 15-16th century literature? Maybe that syntax wasn't in the KJV of the bible but was it in other popular writings such as Shakespeare plays? If JS or his close associates had any access to this kind of popular writing wouldn't it be possible that JS picked up the syntax from those sources?

 

I'm with the OP. I fail to see how this discovery accomplishes anything at all.

Anything is possible, I suppose. And this isn't put forth as constituting proof is it? It's just another look into data answering the question can we know where this text came from, how it got here? Surely it's a response to the argument that Joseph must have used contemporary works and people to create the BoM.

Neither side ahs been proved.

[tonie]

Why are people (including Dan Peterson) getting excited about apparent 1500s grammar in the BoM. Why is Early Modern English (EmodE) and past tense syntax evidence of ancient (Mesoamerican) origin?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153030887386357&id=634891356

As some of the later commenters point out: the "did go" past tense syntax is found in the writing of Joseph's mother AND his own modern revelations. Stuff he was dictating in 1828-1830 all has examples of this. If we find it in his modern scripture (sections 9 and 10 of D&C) then why is it remarkable when found in the Book of Mormon.

I'm baffled why anyone considers this to be in any way evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity.

Here's the abstract from the article referenced:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/

The only evidence is the frequency of use, not its use at all.

Given there's evidence that both Joseph and his mother used the particular past tense syntax in their other writing, why should this be remarkable that it's also found in the Book of Mormon?

Even before reading the op, and just on reading the title, I thought "wouldnt a resonable explaination be that the words used reflect JS understanding. And he would have phrased the BOM to his and others understanding"

Edited March 2, 2015 by tonie

[mfbukowski]

Maybe this could explain the similarities.

 

http://www.candlestickstudio.com/files/Nephites.pdf

Well that is an interesting explanation and it certainly helps John I would say.

[KevinG]

More unwarranted conclusions:

 

the EmodE syntax was God's true syntax and even the ancient prophets knew it.

 

or

 

Young Joseph astral planed to the Library of Alexandria.

[sundrytimes]

But that's only impressive if the writings of Joseph and other contemporaries don't use this syntax.

Given there are several sections of the D&C that use this same syntax, is it really so remarkable.

From one of the Facebook comments:

 

 

I'd be interested to see the same syntax analysis done on D&C compared to BM and Bible. Also, since it's not really present in the PoGP (by a quick count I found only 7 - Moses 1:10; 4:12,18,19; 5:1; 8:27, Abr 1:10), I'd also be curious to see if the D&C loses the 16c past-tense syntax overtime, suggesting that Smith's writing was influenced by the BM in the early years but later he developed his own writing style by the time the books of Moses and Abraham come on the scene.

[mfbukowski]

Nope, interesting possibility.

Definitely interesting.   Trying to figure how it hooks up, but in this wacky world anything can happen.  I don't discount anything as a possibility- a coherent and reasonable story is another thing.

 

Maybe Moroni met one of his descendants in the spirit world and asked him to do the "English Translation" for him, which Joseph channeled.   Hey- I have heard worse explanations for some of this stuff. 

[mfbukowski]

This one really strains credibility.

Uh, think that one through. You wouldn't be here if you didn't believe a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago, and that has a direct bearing on where you will spend eternity.

Now THAT is a story that "strains credibility".

[mfbukowski]

Young Joseph astral planed to the Library of Alexandria.

I kinda like that one.

[theplains]

If JS or his close associates had any access to this kind of popular writing wouldn't it be possible that JS picked up the syntax from those sources?

 

The biblical characters did not speak in King James English. They spoke in Hebrew, Greek,

etc.  The Book of Mormon switches between various English tones. Dallin H. Oaks says

the proper language to pray in is using the KJE forms. See the April 1993 GC.

 

"But as we gain experience as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

we need to become more mature in all of our efforts, including our prayers".

 

Seems to say that if you don't use 'thee', 'thou', etc, then you are praying in an immature

way.  Personally, I don't see any less honor in saying "We humbly petition you Lord for the

safe protection of your servants" versus "We humbly petition thee Lord for the safe protection

of thy servants". 

 

Regards,

Jim