Book Of Mormon Preserved For Language Retention?

[theplains]

I had a few questions on these passages and needed some clarification.

 

1 Nephi 3:19 says, "And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these

records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers".

 

What is the language of Lehi and his forefathers?

 

Mosiah 1:4 says, "For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered

all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of 

these plates; for he having been taught in the a language of the Egyptians therefore he 

could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could 

teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to 

this present time".

 

Were the engravings on Laban's brass plates (containing the five books of Moses and 

the record of the Jews all the way down to Zedekiah - 1 Nephi 5:11-12) written in 

Egyptian or Hebrew?  What language did Lehi teach to his children, and their children

to their children?  

 

Were the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old and New Testaments necessary in

order for early New Testament Christians to preserve the Hebrew and Greek language as

they migrated to other lands?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Freedom]

Eqyptian was the script they used to write in. The only way ANY language can be preserved is if it is written. His children were clearly taught to read egyptian and any other language they needed to survive. But perhaps I should wait for the other shoe to drop. 

[The Nehor]

Were the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old and New Testaments necessary in

order for early New Testament Christians to preserve the Hebrew and Greek language as

they migrated to other lands?

 

No, but they hardly needed to preserve Hebrew as they had both testaments in Greek and the New Testament was written in trade Greek which was the common language of the world at the time.

 

Now, if you want to argue that the people of the New World spoke Egyptian and/or Hebrew and Lehi did not need the plates the situation would be analogous. Good luck with that.

[maklelan]

The only way ANY language can be preserved is if it is written.

 

This simply isn't true. Thousands of languages throughout history have been preserved for generations and generations without ever being written down. Languages are preserved through speaking, not through writing. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Which is more important to preserve?  Language as a specific dialect, or the thoughts?   If you look through the different Book of Mormon uses of the word "langage" you'll see that quite often, the meaning refers to the thoughts being expressed.  Nibley somewhere explained that the word language refers to what is on the tongue. Lingual.  The langugage of the people can refer to what they are saying to each other.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA 

[DragonLancer]

 

I had a few questions on these passages and needed some clarification.

 

1 Nephi 3:19 says, "And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these

records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers".

 

What is the language of Lehi and his forefathers?

 

Mosiah 1:4 says, "For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered

all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of 

these plates; for he having been taught in the a language of the Egyptians therefore he 

could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could 

teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to 

this present time".

 

Were the engravings on Laban's brass plates (containing the five books of Moses and 

the record of the Jews all the way down to Zedekiah - 1 Nephi 5:11-12) written in 

Egyptian or Hebrew?  What language did Lehi teach to his children, and their children

to their children?  

 

Were the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old and New Testaments necessary in

order for early New Testament Christians to preserve the Hebrew and Greek language as

they migrated to other lands?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

In general, with written documents, language is more stable when a current way of speaking is preserved in written form and there is widespread literacy.

As an example, the Mulekites language degenerated quickly, while the Nephite language, presumably was more stable, and closer to original Hebrew.

Even in the Book of Mormon, the Nephites (i.e. priests of Noah) were teaching Lamanites how to read and write their language so things probably stabilized among Lamanites.

 

Latin was preserved by the Catholics by the literacy of their priesthood, even though the populace was illiterate.

Hebrew was preserved by literate Rabbis.

And in these two cases, even though the common languages were different, still, the language was preserved and provided literacy to the educated people.

[Freedom]

This simply isn't true. Thousands of languages throughout history have been preserved for generations and generations without ever being written down. Languages are preserved through speaking, not through writing. 

No because without some way to record it and keep it consistent, it morphs very quickly. This is what happened to the mulekites. A written language maintains continuity of grammar and of vocabulary. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Some examples:

1 Nephi 3:21

21 And it came to pass that after this manner of language did I persuade my brethren, that they might be faithful in keeping the commandments of God.

Alma 46:26

26 Now behold, this was the language of Jacob.

1 Nephi 5:3

3 And after this manner of language had my mother complained against my father.

Jacob 7:4

4 And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil.

1 Nephi 5:6

6 And after this manner of language did my father, Lehi, comfort my mother, Sariah, concerning us, while we journeyed in the wilderness up to the land of Jerusalem, to obtain the record of the Jews.

1 Nephi 10:15

15 And after this manner of language did my father prophesy and speak unto my brethren, and also many more things which I do not write in this book; for I have written as many of them as were expedient for me in mine other book.

Alma 7:1

1 Behold my beloved brethren, seeing that I have been permitted to come unto you, therefore I attempt to address you in my language; yea, by my own mouth, seeing that it is the first time that I have spoken unto you by the words of my mouth, I having been wholly confined to the judgment-seat, having had much business that I could not come unto you.

1 Nephi 5:8

8 And she spake, saying: Now I know of a surety that the Lord hath commanded my husband to flee into the wilderness; yea, and I also know of a surety that the Lord hath protected my sons, and delivered them out of the hands of Laban, and given them power whereby they could accomplish the thing which the Lord hath commanded them. And after this manner of language did she speak.

Alma 26:24

24 For they said unto us: Do ye suppose that ye can bring the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth? Do ye suppose that ye can convince the Lamanites of the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers, as stiffnecked a people as they are; whose hearts delight in the shedding of blood; whose days have been spent in the grossest iniquity; whose ways have been the ways of a transgressor from the beginning? Now my brethren, ye remember that this was their language.

1 Nephi 17:22

22 And we know that the people who were in the land of Jerusalem were a righteous people; for they kept the statutes and judgments of the Lord, and all his commandments, according to the law of Moses; wherefore, we know that they are a righteous people; and our father hath judged them, and hath led us away because we would hearken unto his words; yea, and our brother is like unto him. And after this manner of language did my brethren murmur and complain against us.

Reading with an awareness of this use of the word "language" sometimes brings a bit of ambiguity to some passages.

Interesting too, that no passages with this usage are indexed in my Old 1972 Book of Mormon. I was more surprised that my wife's 1979 version doesn't list them either.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[maklelan]

No because without some way to record it and keep it consistent, it morphs very quickly. This is what happened to the mulekites. A written language maintains continuity of grammar and of vocabulary. 

 

It does not. All languages are in a constant state of evolution. English is actually evolving faster now precisely because of new forms of written communication (e.g., text messaging). Without that evolution, languages die. Latin and Biblical Hebrew are dead languages because they stopped being spoken and only existed in written form. The result is that we don't understand them near as well as people did when they were actually spoken natively. Languages that are exclusively oral actually do not change as rapidly, but that's also largely because of smaller populations and more insular speech communities. 

[maklelan]

In general, with written documents, language is more stable when a current way of speaking is preserved in written form and there is widespread literacy.

As an example, the Mulekites language degenerated quickly, while the Nephite language, presumably was more stable, and closer to original Hebrew.

Even in the Book of Mormon, the Nephites (i.e. priests of Noah) were teaching Lamanites how to read and write their language so things probably stabilized among Lamanites.

 

Latin was preserved by the Catholics by the literacy of their priesthood, even though the populace was illiterate.

Hebrew was preserved by literate Rabbis.

And in these two cases, even though the common languages were different, still, the language was preserved and provided literacy to the educated people.

 

No, Latin and Biblical Hebrew were not preserved. Both are dead languages. They're stable in the same way someone's stocks in the East India Trading Company are stable. Languages are stable when they are commonly spoken. Literacy can help maintain certain registers within a language, but the health of a language as a whole is measured by speakers, not texts. 

[Freedom]

Strictly oral languages have fewer vocabulary, shorter sentences, more contractions. You cannot compare modern language with global and rapid changes to languages of 2000 years ago. that is a false comparison. As Kevin pointed out, the written word transmits ideas that can be referred back to. When the written component of a language is lost, it becomes more simple and future generations cannot refer to any standards. A language that used to have a dozen words for land soon only has one or two. It becomes corrupted very quickly, within one or two generations. You are referring to a word like 'land' that will carry on for generations by oral tradition. What is lost is diversity and specificity of vocabulary as as the ideas that were generated by that more diverse language. I do not see the formation of new words a corrupting a language, I see it as expanding and improving it. Languages without a written form dwindle and get lost. 

[maklelan]

Strictly oral languages have fewer vocabulary, shorter sentences, more contractions.

Can you provide some examples of this?

You cannot compare modern language with global and rapid changes to languages of 2000 years ago.

Yes, I can. There are still thousands of languages on this planet that are not written down and still function much the same way the languages of 2000 years ago did. I study languages for a living. From where are you drawing these assertions?

that is a false comparison. As Kevin pointed out, the written word transmits ideas that can be referred back to. When the written component of a language is lost, it becomes more simple and future generations cannot refer to any standards.

So give me an example of a language that lost its "written component."

A language that used to have a dozen words for land soon only has one or two.

To what evidence can you point in support of this claim?

It becomes corrupted very quickly, within one or two generations. You are referring to a word like 'land' that will carry on for generations by oral tradition. What is lost is diversity and specificity of vocabulary as as the ideas that were generated by that more diverse language.

This sounds like the assumptions of someone who has never actually studied a primary oral language.

I do not see the formation of new words a corrupting a language, I see it as expanding and improving it.

Me too.

Languages without a written form dwindle and get lost.

That is simply not true. You're stating an opinion based on assumption. Languages dwindle and get lost when they run out of speakers. This is a demonstrable fact. Numerous, numerous languages have existed for centuries without being written down at all, and numerous, numerous languages that have written forms dwindle and get lost all the time.

[Freedom]

There is plenty of scholarship on language. Do  a google search. 

[The Nehor]

Strictly oral languages have fewer vocabulary, shorter sentences, more contractions. You cannot compare modern language with global and rapid changes to languages of 2000 years ago. that is a false comparison. As Kevin pointed out, the written word transmits ideas that can be referred back to. When the written component of a language is lost, it becomes more simple and future generations cannot refer to any standards. A language that used to have a dozen words for land soon only has one or two. It becomes corrupted very quickly, within one or two generations. You are referring to a word like 'land' that will carry on for generations by oral tradition. What is lost is diversity and specificity of vocabulary as as the ideas that were generated by that more diverse language. I do not see the formation of new words a corrupting a language, I see it as expanding and improving it. Languages without a written form dwindle and get lost.

This is all guesswork. It is almost impossible to trace the evolution on an unwritten language because you cannot tell how it was spoken a few centuries back. There is nothing to study. The data is off as most of the non-written languages we have modern studies on are languages that are dead or dying. There is a contraction or at least a decrease in innovation when a language is dying.

I am also confused as to the idea that language appeals to standards. We certainly do not refer to Beowulf or Shakespeare as a guide to grammar, spelling, or word usage.

[maklelan]

There is plenty of scholarship on language. Do  a google search.

Don't need to. I'm a linguist. I study languages every single day. I'm the one who's familiar with the research, which is why I can ask you to provide support for your claim knowing full well you can never provide it, since it doesn't exist. You're making naive and prescriptivist assumptions, and I'll thank you to stop pretending to lecture me about how languages work.

[maklelan]

This is all guesswork. It is almost impossible to trace the evolution on an unwritten language because you cannot tell how it was spoken a few centuries back. There is nothing to study. The data is off as most of the non-written languages we have modern studies on are languages that are dead or dying.

Not really. There are still plenty of non-written languages that are alive and well. They're not huge languages, but they're not going anywhere. While we know of almost 700 languages that are not written, we estimate about half the world's 7,000+ languages are not written.

There is a contraction or at least a decrease in innovation when a language is dying.

I am also confused as to the idea that language appeals to standards. We certainly do not refer to Beowulf or Shakespeare as a guide to grammar, spelling, or word usage.

His position sounds like one a naive prescriptivist would take.

[CA Steve]

 There are still plenty of non-written languages that are alive and well. They're not huge languages, but they're not going anywhere. While we know of almost 700 languages that are not written, we estimate about half the world's 7,000+ languages are not written.

 

Maklelan,

 

I wonder if you would expand on this a bit.

 

If we know there are 7000± languages, how is it we do not know how many of them are written and how many are not? Wouldn't the process that identifies a language also be able to tell if it was written or not? Or, does the 7000 number include a lot of past languages no longer used for which there is no written version? Are there examples of languages in use today that we are not certain whether or not they have a written version? If so, how does that happen?

 

Just curious here.

 

Thanks

[maklelan]

Maklelan,

 

I wonder if you would expand on this a bit.

 

If we know there are 7000± languages,how is it we do not know how many of them are written and how many are not? Wouldn't the process that identifies a language also be able to tell if it was written or not?

No. The information available to us that might identify something as a separate language may or may not be comprehensive enough to identify written forms or their absence.

Or, does the 7000 number include a lot of past languages no longer used for which there is no written version?

No, that is the number of known living languages.

Are there examples of languages in use today that we are not certain whether or not they have a written version? If so, how does that happen?

Very easily. We don't have full access to all speech communities, and we may have identified a language based on indirect or incomplete information. Not all speakers of a given language know all of its details, either.

 

Just curious here.

 

Thanks

No problem.

[strappinglad]

I wonder just how much of the history of Egypt we moderns would know if Egyptian were only a spoken language. As it was , until long after the Rosette Stone was found , much was speculation. Those who spoke Egyptian were unable to clarify much about their past. Truly, the phrase used by JS , that all was " dark as Egypt " did portray the then extent of knowledge . It was only recently that the ability to translate Mayan Glyphs has opened a world of information about Mesoamerican civilizations. Mayan is still spoken today although likely much changed from the Mayan of the 2nd century CE. And there a many dialects of " Mayan " .

Information that is not recorded can be easily lost or distorted. Even if recorded, it can become unreadable in a short time. Witness our own history with Beta or 8 track tape.

Now, if we could just figure out the Voynich Manuscript !

[Freedom]

Don't need to. I'm a linguist. I study languages every single day. I'm the one who's familiar with the research, which is why I can ask you to provide support for your claim knowing full well you can never provide it, since it doesn't exist. You're making naive and prescriptivist assumptions, and I'll thank you to stop pretending to lecture me about how languages work.

And you have provide any support for your own claims? I am making no assumptions. 

[Freedom]

About half of the languages on the planet do not have a written form and linguists have been studying these languages for a very long time. About 80% of languages in Africa have no written form and many of them have fewer than 2000 words. When we compare the written form of a language to its spoken form, it is easy to see that the written form uses a far larger variety of words and is much better structured. If we did not have a dictionary or thesaurus our vocabulary would shrink dramatically and definitions of words would no longer be standardized.  

 

So yes it is possible to study languages that have no written form and to compare them to languages that do have a written form. Oral histories are simply not as reliable as a written history for, I would think, patently obvious reasons. Without a written form, we loose history, ideas, and vocabulary.   

[strappinglad]

The English language has a recorded number of about 1 million words. The average person has a vocabulary of about 25,000 words. Without a written record , the average vocabulary would not need more that a few thousand words to allow a person to function in regular life. In fact , a person learning a new language can deal with most situations that arise in normal life if that person has learned about 3000 words and the rudiments of the required grammar. And with only those few words we are able to insult and vilify and antagonize at will. Don't you just love it??

[rodheadlee]

I get by in Mexico on about 30 words

[maklelan]

About half of the languages on the planet do not have a written form and linguists have been studying these languages for a very long time. About 80% of languages in Africa have no written form and many of them have fewer than 2000 words. When we compare the written form of a language to its spoken form, it is easy to see that the written form uses a far larger variety of words and is much better structured. If we did not have a dictionary or thesaurus our vocabulary would shrink dramatically and definitions of words would no longer be standardized.

Definitions of words are not standardized. They change when people change them. I'm glad you've hopped on Google to look stuff up, but you're still approaching things from a naive prescriptivist point of view.

 

So yes it is possible to study languages that have no written form and to compare them to languages that do have a written form. Oral histories are simply not as reliable as a written history for, I would think, patently obvious reasons.

Texts can't be manipulated? What are your thoughts on Ong?

Without a written form, we loose history, ideas, and vocabulary.

*lose, and no, we don't. It just evolves in a different way.

[maklelan]

And you have provide any support for your own claims? I am making no assumptions.

You are making nothing but assumptions. For what particular claims would you like references?