Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Brian Stubbs' Summary Of New Book

hagoth7

By hagoth7
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

hagoth7 Mentor

hagoth7

Posted
Posted

From Robert F. Smith a few weeks back in a very lengthy thread:

Actually, my friend Brian Stubbs (now a retired teacher of linguistics at College of Eastern Utah) is a latecomer to the debate, and his expertise is in both Semitic and Uto-Aztecan languages.  You can see the preview and summary of his forthcoming book on the subject online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/255065742/Summary-of-Book-EXPLORING-THE-EXPLANATORY-POWER-OF-SEMITIC-AND-EGYPTIAN-IN-UTO-AZTECAN .

Have any of you reviewed the online summary yet? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

I've recently read the summary, and it's one of the most intriguing things I've read in quite some time.

 

I buy relatively few LDS books, but when the full version of this one comes out, it will find a place in my den.

2
  • Popular Post
bofmmodel Contributor

bofmmodel

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

The thing that's different about Brian Stubbs' work is that, although his findings parallel the language requirements in the Book of Mormon in --tremendous-- detail, his proposal is not written to a Mormon audience.

 

Take a look at the "excerpts" article mentioned above and ask yourself what kind of audience he's trying to address.  That article is a clear attempt to try to summarize his larger work in a way that will get critical attention from historical linguists.

 

At the very end of the "excerpts", it says:

 

 

David H. Kelley, Harvard PhD who published in anthropology, linguistics, Uto-Aztecan, and contributed to the decipherment of the Mayan glyphs, said upon receiving an earlier draft: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading the whole thing. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.”

 

 

 

I had a very similar experience.  In conjunction with some other research I was involved with I was able to get a preliminary copy of the full 400-page proposal that Brian is preparing for publication.  When "the thick thing came in the mail" (as David Kelly described it) I knew I had my work cut out for me.

 

The full book has an introductory section to help non-linguists like myself to start to understand what the rest of the book is saying.  That introduction is very well written and is essential reading for anyone not familiar with the technical details of historical linguistics or the specific language families involved in his proposal.  On the other hand, once you finish the introduction you will know enough to know that you don't know nearly enough to accurately judge the validity of his work.  The introductory section is enough to help you generally understand what you're reading in the rest of the proposal, but understanding what the proposal is saying is very different from judging the accuracy and weight of the evidence he presents.

 

Before "the thick thing that came in the mail" arrived, I had told Brian that I would make a serious study of whatever he sent me, but after reading the introduction and the first few "cognate sets" in the proposal, it was clear to me that I needed education in historical linguistics.  It wasn't because I didn't understand what he was presenting, it was because the things he was presenting were startlingly supportive of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

 

Like I said in another recent thread, what he is proposing is the linguistic equivalent of an archaeologist discovering a "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign.  Unfortunately, this isn't the first time that we've heard that someone has discovered convincing evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  In fact, it happens so often that most members don't even bat an eyebrow when they hear about new Book of Mormon "evidence".  Why should we think that Brian's proposal is any different?

 

One answer to that question was very obvious once I started even glancing at his book:  It was not written to an LDS audience.

 

In other words, Brian is not publishing his book as an attempt to make us feel better about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. He is trying to convince a very skeptical audience of historical linguists that a large new-world language family was heavily influenced by Semitic and Egyptian dialects.  The evidence he proposes is presented in tremendous detail using the methodology that historical linguists expect language proposals to adhere to.  This methodology is called the "Comparative Method" and is very effective in both demonstrating true language relationships and detecting false proposed language relationships.

 

Like I said before, I realized that I needed a better knowledge of historical linguistics, so I began studying.  There are some great online resources to help with this process, but a trip to the library is also in order.  I would highly recommend reading "Historical Linguistics, An Introduction" by Lyle Campbell.  This book was recommended to me by a professional historical linguist and was definitely a good place to start.  Lyle Campbell is not only well respected within the professional community, he is also an expert in Uto-Aztecan languages, making his opinion on historical linguistics particularly well suited to the task at hand.

 

In the end, even though I found that there is a lot that I can judge about Brian's proposal just by knowing the in's and out's of the Comparative Method, there are still stones that I have to leave unturned just because I'm not an expert in the language families involved in his proposal.  I feel like I know enough and have studied it enough to recommend it to people who are likewise willing to take a serious look at it, but what really needs to happen is for a reputable historical linguist to do a thorough review of the proposal and offer us a professional opinion on the matter.

 

Unfortunately, that is easier said than done.  In a recent thread here on mormondialogue, I mentioned how hard it is to get professionals to peer review anything like Brian's proposal.  Others replied was that I was basically using one of the oldest excuses used by Book of Mormon apologetics.  They are right, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong about it being hard to get a professional peer-review.  For example, 11 years ago Brian published a smaller paper for LDS audiences that gave a few hints about what he was doing.  Someone asked an online group of historical linguists what they thought.  As could be expected, they weren't impressed.  After all, that paper was not intended to convince them, but one exchange in that conversation (referenced here) is very telling regarding the difficulty that Brian faces as he tries to get professionals to look at his work:

 

discussion.png

9
cognitiveharmony Explorer

cognitiveharmony

Posted
Posted (edited)

We already know that near eastern DNA has been discovered in amerindian populations but we also know that this DNA entered many thousands of years before any BOM migration timeline. This research shows nothing more than the possibility that some of the Asiatic migrations to america were from tribes hailing from the same regions such as Egypt and Canaan with similar languages or simply that they hailed from an area with the same parent languages as Hebrew and Egyptian. I obviously haven't had a chance to read anything more than the summary but it doesn't appear that he is challenging the traditionally held timeline for the origin of the Uto-Aztecan language. The people that spoke this language resided in the areas in question long before the proposed Nephite migration so of necessity in order to give any support at all to the historicity of the BOM, they would have to show the near eastern language incurrence was at the correct time. I doubt we'll see anything even remotely close to this.

Edited by cognitiveharmony
2
bofmmodel Contributor

bofmmodel

Posted
Posted

We already know that near eastern DNA has been discovered in amerindian populations but we also know that this DNA entered many thousands of years before any BOM migration timeline. This research shows nothing more than the possibility that some of the Asiatic migrations to america were from tribes hailing from the same regions such as Egypt and Canaan with similar languages or simply that they hailed from an area with the same parent languages as Hebrew and Egyptian. I obviously haven't had a chance to read anything more than the summary but it doesn't appear that he is challenging the traditionally held timeline for the origin of the Uto-Aztecan language. The people that spoke this language resided in the areas in question long before the proposed Nephite migration so of necessity in order to give any support at all to the historicity of the BOM, they would have to show the near eastern language incurrence was at the correct time. I doubt we'll see anything even remotely close to this.

 

I haven't been as clear in this thread as I was in the other.  What Brian is proposing is that Uto-Aztecan was strongly influenced by Semitic languages from two different sources.  Both sources show indications of being derivatives of Northwest Semitic with some indications that they might have derived circa ~600 BC and that one of the sources was bilingual Semitic/Egyptian speaking.  He further proposes that after each of these sources derived from Northwest Semitic, they each developed into separate dialects before influencing Uto-Aztecan.  His proposal suggests that Uto-Aztecan is not necessarily genetically derived from one or both of these dialects, but rather that it was heavily influenced by both of them to the point that Uto-Aztecan languages might be considered a creolization of a former (presumably Native American) language and these Semitic/Egyptian dialects.

4
cognitiveharmony Explorer

cognitiveharmony

Posted
Posted

I haven't been as clear in this thread as I was in the other.  What Brian is proposing is that Uto-Aztecan was strongly influenced by Semitic languages from two different sources.  Both sources show indications of being derivatives of Northwest Semitic with some indications that they might have derived circa ~600 BC and that one of the sources was bilingual Semitic/Egyptian speaking.  He further proposes that after each of these sources derived from Northwest Semitic, they each developed into separate dialects before influencing Uto-Aztecan.  His proposal suggests that Uto-Aztecan is not necessarily genetically derived from one or both of these dialects, but rather that it was heavily influenced by both of them to the point that Uto-Aztecan languages might be considered a creolization of a former (presumably Native American) language and these Semitic/Egyptian dialects.

I'll be very interested to hear what his "indications" are. Maybe you could tease us with some as you've already had access to the book?

bofmmodel Contributor

bofmmodel

Posted
Posted

I'll be very interested to hear what his "indications" are. Maybe you could tease us with some as you've already had access to the book?

 

:)  patience my friend

jkwilliams Grand Master

jkwilliams

Posted
Posted

:)  patience my friend

 

Are you getting a percentage of the book sales? I haven't seen so much excitement since that thing about Mt. Doom a while back.

bofmmodel Contributor

bofmmodel

Posted
Posted

Are you getting a percentage of the book sales? I haven't seen so much excitement since that thing about Mt. Doom a while back.

 

Actually, I'm trying to work a deal for the movie rights.  Just think how exciting it would be to watch a dramatization of a multi-decade effort to propose sound correspondences between language families.

3
bofmmodel Contributor

bofmmodel

Posted
Posted

Seriously please.  What is the ETA?

 

I seriously don't know exactly.  I got a preliminary copy, not an exact timeline.  From what I've heard it will be "soon", but I don't know more.

Saint Sinner Collaborator

Saint Sinner

Posted
Posted

The thing that's different about Brian Stubbs' work is that, although his findings parallel the language requirements in the Book of Mormon in --tremendous-- detail, his proposal is not written to a Mormon audience.

 

Take a look at the "excerpts" article mentioned above and ask yourself what kind of audience he's trying to address.  That article is a clear attempt to try to summarize his larger work in a way that will get critical attention from historical linguists.

 

At the very end of the "excerpts", it says:

 

 

 

 

I had a very similar experience.  In conjunction with some other research I was involved with I was able to get a preliminary copy of the full 400-page proposal that Brian is preparing for publication.  When "the thick thing came in the mail" (as David Kelly described it) I knew I had my work cut out for me.

 

The full book has an introductory section to help non-linguists like myself to start to understand what the rest of the book is saying.  That introduction is very well written and is essential reading for anyone not familiar with the technical details of historical linguistics or the specific language families involved in his proposal.  On the other hand, once you finish the introduction you will know enough to know that you don't know nearly enough to accurately judge the validity of his work.  The introductory section is enough to help you generally understand what you're reading in the rest of the proposal, but understanding what the proposal is saying is very different from judging the accuracy and weight of the evidence he presents.

 

Before "the thick thing that came in the mail" arrived, I had told Brian that I would make a serious study of whatever he sent me, but after reading the introduction and the first few "cognate sets" in the proposal, it was clear to me that I needed education in historical linguistics.  It wasn't because I didn't understand what he was presenting, it was because the things he was presenting were startlingly supportive of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

 

Like I said in another recent thread, what he is proposing is the linguistic equivalent of an archaeologist discovering a "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign.  Unfortunately, this isn't the first time that we've heard that someone has discovered convincing evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  In fact, it happens so often that most members don't even bat an eyebrow when they hear about new Book of Mormon "evidence".  Why should we think that Brian's proposal is any different?

 

One answer to that question was very obvious once I started even glancing at his book:  It was not written to an LDS audience.

 

In other words, Brian is not publishing his book as an attempt to make us feel better about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. He is trying to convince a very skeptical audience of historical linguists that a large new-world language family was heavily influenced by Semitic and Egyptian dialects.  The evidence he proposes is presented in tremendous detail using the methodology that historical linguists expect language proposals to adhere to.  This methodology is called the "Comparative Method" and is very effective in both demonstrating true language relationships and detecting false proposed language relationships.

 

Like I said before, I realized that I needed a better knowledge of historical linguistics, so I began studying.  There are some great online resources to help with this process, but a trip to the library is also in order.  I would highly recommend reading "Historical Linguistics, An Introduction" by Lyle Campbell.  This book was recommended to me by a professional historical linguist and was definitely a good place to start.  Lyle Campbell is not only well respected within the professional community, he is also an expert in Uto-Aztecan languages, making his opinion on historical linguistics particularly well suited to the task at hand.

 

In the end, even though I found that there is a lot that I can judge about Brian's proposal just by knowing the in's and out's of the Comparative Method, there are still stones that I have to leave unturned just because I'm not an expert in the language families involved in his proposal.  I feel like I know enough and have studied it enough to recommend it to people who are likewise willing to take a serious look at it, but what really needs to happen is for a reputable historical linguist to do a thorough review of the proposal and offer us a professional opinion on the matter.

 

Unfortunately, that is easier said than done.  In a recent thread here on mormondialogue, I mentioned how hard it is to get professionals to peer review anything like Brian's proposal.  Others replied was that I was basically using one of the oldest excuses used by Book of Mormon apologetics.  They are right, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong about it being hard to get a professional peer-review.  For example, 11 years ago Brian published a smaller paper for LDS audiences that gave a few hints about what he was doing.  Someone asked an online group of historical linguists what they thought.  As could be expected, they weren't impressed.  After all, that paper was not intended to convince them, but one exchange in that conversation (referenced here) is very telling regarding the difficulty that Brian faces as he tries to get professionals to look at his work:

 

discussion.png

This is phenomenal. I can't wait to read it.

nosmelone Collaborator

nosmelone

Posted
Posted (edited)

I found this portion of the BMAF 16 page article to be quite interesting.  Brian seems like a good guy and I am extremely excited for this to come out.  And I will be obtaining the "Historical Linguistics, An Introduction" by Lyle Campbell book here shortly.

 

 

"Knowing how unwelcome such a proposal would be in the linguistic community and being a peace-loving recluse by nature, I was in no hurry to invite the avalanche of controversy upon me. However, equally risky is pressing my luck in postponing a presentation that should preferably occur on this side of the mortal divide. So as youth becomes a more distant memory, it is time to share these findings, which, as both a Semiticist and a Uto-Aztecanist, I could not help but notice. Such observations surfaced during a three-decade effort to write the reference book Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary (UACV, Stubbs 2011), favorably received among Uto-Aztecanists, though no two Uto-Aztecan specialists will agree on all aspects and reconstructions, as Kenneth Hill notes in a favorable review in the International Journal of American Linguistics (Hill 2012), and after any linguistic comparative work, adjustments inevitably follow. A case not valid will unravel with scrutiny, while truth is further substantiated with time, accumulating more and more supports.

The book is intended for linguists, Semiticists, and Egyptologists, and therefore includes the linguistic rigor demanded by the comparative method, and for non-specialists it also contains introductions to linguistics (language science), to the Semitic languages, and to UA. This article is a mere handful of highlights—260 examples from 1528—a quick glance in a nutshell.

After Sapir (1913, 1915) established Uto-Aztecan as a viable family of related languages, Voegelin, Voegelin, and Hale (1962) produced the first numbered list of 171 cognate sets (groups of related words). Klar (1977) brought the Chumash languages to clarity with 168 sets. Taylor (1963) established Caddoan (a language family of the central plains), assembling 107 cognate sets. Hale (1962, 1967) did the definitive study for Kiowa-Tanoan with 99 sets. This work’s proposal may better compare to tying two distant language families, as did Haas (1958) by ending four decades of controversy in uniting Algonkian-Ritwan, an eastern U.S. family with a west coast family, by means of 93 sets. Chamberlain (1888) began the union of Catawba with Siouan via 17 comparisons, and Siebert (1945) secured it with mostly morphological correlations, as not enough clear cognate sets were known at the time to establish correspondences (Campbell 1997, 140). Thus, the going rate is between 50 and 200 sets to establish most Native American language families. So this case of 1500-plus sets merits proportionate consideration."

Edited by nosmelone
2
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted

You're terrible.

Yes.

Well. he was an understudy for Bella Lugosi  .

Yeah, I was into starring in movie adaptations of what amounts to Victorian porn and was into vampires before they were cool.

Saint Sinner Collaborator

Saint Sinner

Posted
Posted

Yes.

Yeah, I was into starring in movie adaptations of what amounts to Victorian porn and was into vampires before they were cool.

Good morning, Nehor. How are you today? Terrible? :)

The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted

Good morning, Nehor. How are you today? Terrible? :)

Trying to come up with arguments that will mollify or perhaps crush a customer's Union in the interests of safety. Always a challenge.

1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...