churchistrue Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 I was made aware of Brian Stubbs' material today on a fb thread. I listened to this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgNboP0Mtfs and have done a little google searching including reading some old threads here. I'm no scholar, but this doesn't appear to have strong academic clout. Do other LDS apologists take this work seriously? To answer my question, I guess they must to a degree, since he will be presenting at FairMormon this week. What do you guys think? It's fascinating research, but I don't know how seriously to take this.
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted August 2, 2016 Popular Post Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, churchistrue said: I was made aware of Brian Stubbs' material today on a fb thread. I listened to this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgNboP0Mtfs and have done a little google searching including reading some old threads here. I'm no scholar, but this doesn't appear to have strong academic clout. Do other LDS apologists take this work seriously? To answer my question, I guess they must to a degree, since he will be presenting at FairMormon this week. What do you guys think? It's fascinating research, but I don't know how seriously to take this. Brian is a general linguistics expert who has retired from teaching it at the College of Eastern Utah. He has specialized in Uto-Aztecan languages, but he has training in Semitic and Egyptian languages as well. He has an M.A. A summary of the book you refer to in the title of this thread is available online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/254510927/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-for-purchase-of-the-complete-book-go-to-www-bookofmormoncaractorstranslation-com . The book was thoroughly researched and is 436 pages, ISBN 978-0-9863189-3-1. Learned comment on the book is to be found at http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2015/02/connecting-some-scattered-book-of.html . He is also the author of the largest dictionary of Uto-Aztecan. Brian just came out with his latest book a few days ago, Changes in Languages: From Nephi to Now (Blanding, UT: Four Corners Digital Design, 2016), and I just got my copy today. 6
Glenn101 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 2 hours ago, churchistrue said: I was made aware of Brian Stubbs' material today on a fb thread. I listened to this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgNboP0Mtfs and have done a little google searching including reading some old threads here. I'm no scholar, but this doesn't appear to have strong academic clout. Do other LDS apologists take this work seriously? To answer my question, I guess they must to a degree, since he will be presenting at FairMormon this week. What do you guys think? It's fascinating research, but I don't know how seriously to take this. Brian has been researching this for some time and is working very hard to make it linguistically credible to his peers and not just LDS peers. For a true critique, you would need to be a linguist. There was a thread some time (years?) ago on a book by Brian. You can catch up on it here if you wish to do some background work. Glenn 1
Darren10 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Brian just came out with his latest book a few days ago, Changes in Languages: From Nephi to Now (Blanding, UT: Four Corners Digital Design, 2016), and I just got my copy today. That's wonderful as I really like Stubb's work. It's still a bit hard to track it down online though.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 45 minutes ago, Darren10 said: That's wonderful as I really like Stubb's work. It's still a bit hard to track it down online though. Try ISBN 978-0-9914741-1-0
churchistrue Posted August 2, 2016 Author Posted August 2, 2016 How does his research affect the common theories like LGT, assumed location of Mesoamerica, mixing populations theory, etc? How do Uto-Aztecan languages relate to Mayan languages? Also, has he done proper controls, such as identifying if the parallels exceed random distribution or what would be expected between languages?
Glenn101 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 10 hours ago, churchistrue said: How does his research affect the common theories like LGT, assumed location of Mesoamerica, mixing populations theory, etc? How do Uto-Aztecan languages relate to Mayan languages? Also, has he done proper controls, such as identifying if the parallels exceed random distribution or what would be expected between languages? To answer the second two of your questions, you need to read the books and articles by Brian. He explains his methodology, controls etc. He notes that some cognates between languages can and do exist and explains how he has come to his conclusions. He points out areas where his conclusions may be weak, but also points out where he feels that his conclusions are strong. Someone versed in linguistics can help you understand his methods. Glenn 1
Lala Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 churchistrue, it would be very weird indeed that the EGyptians would be in any way associated with the Uto-Aztec, but it's not as weird when you've already heard them being associated with the Polyniesians, know they're very good sailors, and know that, as this article says - http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.html - Polynesians have been to South America. read on this Scandinavian dude, Thor Heyerdahl: he replicated Egyptian sailing ships! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl Just pretend you're Australian. What in the world would you think about life if you lived alongside Aborigines on the streets?
hagoth7 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, Lala said: churchistrue, it would be very weird indeed that the Egyptians would... Welcome to the forum.
RevTestament Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 On 8/1/2016 at 6:03 PM, churchistrue said: I was made aware of Brian Stubbs' material today on a fb thread. I listened to this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgNboP0Mtfs and have done a little google searching including reading some old threads here. I'm no scholar, but this doesn't appear to have strong academic clout. Do other LDS apologists take this work seriously? To answer my question, I guess they must to a degree, since he will be presenting at FairMormon this week. What do you guys think? It's fascinating research, but I don't know how seriously to take this. I am not a linguistics expert, but the sheer number of cognates he finds just seems to be way beyond coincidental probabilities.
USU78 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I am not a linguistics expert, but the sheer number of cognates he finds just seems to be way beyond coincidental probabilities. It's not so much the cognates, but rather the systemized consonantal shifts that impressed me. His initial cognates [yasipa --> yeshiva] is about as impressive a cognate pair as one could imagine. That stuff would impress a Grimm*. *The brothers basically invented modern linguistics. 2
RevTestament Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Lala said: churchistrue, it would be very weird indeed that the EGyptians would be in any way associated with the Uto-Aztec, not so weird given some of the central American archaeology: Looks downright Nubian.
hagoth7 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 On 8/2/2016 at 6:53 AM, churchistrue said: How do Uto-Aztecan languages relate to Mayan languages? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UtoAztecanlanguages.png
hagoth7 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) On 8/2/2016 at 6:53 AM, churchistrue said: How does his research affect the common theories like LGT, assumed location of Mesoamerica, mixing populations theory, etc? It's been a year or three since I read an earlier version of his U-A work. The geography of it alone is interesting enough...posited halfway in MesoAmerica, and halfway in the U.S....fueling either of the two largest LGT camps, or bridging both. :0) Edited July 3, 2017 by hagoth7
Bob Crockett Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) The study of linguistics is highly subjective. Thomas Jefferson was convinced there was an expat group of Welshmen living on the upper Platte River as Native Americans. He based his opinion on state-of-the art linguist opinion. Largely on that basis he authorized and paid for the exploration of the Northwest. John Wesley Powell made extensive linguistic findings in his journal of the exploration of the Colorado River, leading to his appointment at the Smithsonian. Even today, some sociologists are convinced the Chinese had pre-Columbian contact with Native Americans, partially on the basis of linguistics. So when I read any linguistics analysis trying to compare disparate civilizations, I tend to take it with a grain of salt. I read it, and it is a definite scientific discipline, but just doesn't seem convincing. I have several volumes of an extensive learned treatise on the origins of the Native Americans -- pre-DNA -- and the authors tend to rest their opinions on linguistics, comparing alphabets of sounds and phrases. Today, DNA findings don't necessarily support such analysis. Edited July 3, 2017 by Bob Crockett
hagoth7 Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: So when I read any linguistics analysis trying to compare disparate civilizations, I tend to take it with a grain of salt. So should we all. Salt makes things tastier. And is a preservative. And certain types of salt fertilize the soil for more abundant growth. Edited July 4, 2017 by hagoth7
Recommended Posts