Example of unique Book of Mormon grammar in an 1835 revelation?

[Benjamin Seeker]

I remember hearing an interview with Royal Skousen in which he explained a unique grammatical structure from the BOM not represented in English of any period. In other words, there a repeating structure found in the BOM that is not attested in English grammar from any time period. It consists of a string of clauses each connected with the word "and" followed by a final clause that also is prefixed with the word "and," though in typical grammar the last "and" wouldn't be there.  

I believe I've found an example of this in a revelation recieved on Nov. 3 1835. The relevant section reads:

Quote

for what man amon[g] you having twelve Sons  and is no respecter to them and they serve  him obediantly and he saith unto the  one be thou clothed in robes and sit thou  here, and to the other be thou clothed in  rages [rags] and sit thou there, and looketh upon  his sons and saith I am just

The last "and" that comes before "looketh upon his sons and saith I am just" typically wouldn't be there in usual grammar. 

Anyone familiar with this part of Skousen's work? Maybe Carmack will see this post and give some analysis. From what I can tell, this is a valid example of the unique structure Skousen spoke about. If so, I think it's notable that it can be found both in the BOM, a translation text, and in a revelation that doesn't purport to be a translation.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[cdowis]

Sorry, but don't see the issue when you go to the trouble of diagramming the sentence ==>>  you will see that the actual phrase is "and then" rather than simply "and".

Sit down here

Sit down there

AND {then, having said this} looketh

The AND indicates a transition from making the two statements, "and" then then he  comes to a conclusion.  It becomes more clear if you use "and then" rather than the word "and" alone.  "Then" is simply understood.

This is a common phrase  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=and+then&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cand then%3B%2Cc0

Edited December 14, 2016 by cdowis

[Benjamin Seeker]

That's a good clarification. The implied "then," I believe, makes this the structure Skousen is talking about.

[bcuzbcuz]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I remember hearing an interview with Royal Skousen in which he explained a unique grammatical structure from the BOM not represented in English of any period. In other words, there a repeating structure found in the BOM that is not attested in English grammar from any time period. It consists of a string of clauses each connected with the word "and" followed by a final clause that also is prefixed with the word "and," though in typical grammar the last "and" wouldn't be there.  

I believe I've found an example of this in a revelation recieved on Nov. 3 1835. The relevant section reads:

The last "and" that comes before "looketh upon his sons and saith I am just" typically wouldn't be there in usual grammar. 

Anyone familiar with this part of Skousen's work? Maybe Carmack will see this post and give some analysis. From what I can tell, this is a valid example of the unique structure Skousen spoke about. If so, I think it's notable that it can be found both in the BOM, a translation text, and in a revelation that doesn't purport to be a translation.

Having corrected more than tens of thousand of middle school and secondary school English compositions over a period of 40 years of teaching, I can assure you that the usage of "and"..."and"...."and"... Is not a rarity in English grammatical structure. True, it is not found in good English literature nor in any of the classical literatures, of any language, because it is just plain poor grammar. But it's daily, average usage in conversation and simple English compositions that lack character and dynamics and good grammar is as common as dirt. 

Was it used by Joseph Smith? Assuredly. Does that give it any significance or attest to any brilliance or enlightment? Hardly. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

30 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Having corrected more than tens of thousand of middle school and secondary school English compositions over a period of 40 years of teaching, I can assure you that the usage of "and"..."and"...."and"... Is not a rarity in English grammatical structure. True, it is not found in good English literature nor in any of the classical literatures, of any language, because it is just plain poor grammar. But it's daily, average usage in conversation and simple English compositions that lack character and dynamics and good grammar is as common as dirt. 

Was it used by Joseph Smith? Assuredly. Does that give it any significance or attest to any brilliance or enlightment? Hardly. 

Not claiming it does, and I agree that it appears to just be incorrect grammar. I don't believe Skousen, in explaining the structure, used it as evidence of any special case for Joseph. He was just noting a repeated grammatical event in the BOM that appears to be incorrect grammar not ever regularly employed in modern English or EmodE, in contrast to the many other examples of what at first appear to be "incorrect" grammar in the BOM that do fit into either EmodE or modern English. 

The question here is simply, is this example of a superfluous "and" and implied "then" in the final phrase an example of the grammatical structure identified by Skousen as a consistent structure in the BOM? I'm hoping someon who knows Skousen's work will speak up (and maybe even include a reference).

(This is not the foundation of a pro or anti JS argument. It's merely a descriptive inquiry into the grammar of the BOM and JS' revelations.)

Edited December 14, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[churchistrue]

edited: wrong thread. accidental post.

Edited December 14, 2016 by churchistrue

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

This has been an interesting pursuit for me.  It's a very interesting exercise to go to google advanced book with criteria before 1830 and search for unique sounding BOM phrases.  I've written about it in a few posts.  I would like to do a more detailed dive into this, but I haven't found the time or interest yet.  

 

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/anachronistic-christian-doctrine-in-book-of-mormon/

http://www.churchistrue.com/book-of-mormon-content/

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/tad-callister-byu-devotional-on-book-of-mormon-historicity/

Randall, I think you meant to post this on my Protestant quotation thread. I do remember looking through one of your articles, and wanting to learn more. Thanks for these!

[churchistrue]

11 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Randall, I think you meant to post this on my Protestant quotation thread. I do remember looking through one of your articles, and wanting to learn more. Thanks for these!

Yes I did. Doh. I'll fix that. 

[champatsch]

Ben, I think what you have quoted can be boiled down to the following:

Quote

for what man amon[g] you
doing various things
and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just [?]

You're wondering about the intrusive "and" that is seen a lot in the BofM, as in this verse:

Quote

(Ether 15:30)
And it came to pass that when Coriantumr had leaned upon his sword,
that he rested a little,
and he smote off the head of Shiz.

The and here was removed by John Gilbert in 1830 (see Skousen, Grammatical Variation, 1:374). It could be a literalistic translation of a Hebraistic construction, similar to this biblical example:

Quote

Genesis 27:34

literalistic Hebrew
when Esau heard the words of his father
and he cried a loud and bitter cry to the extreme

King James Bible
and when Esau heard the words of his father
he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry

Skousen, GV, 1:364.

But the D&C presumably doesn't have an underlying Semitic text from which to derive an intrusive and.  To my knowledge, this particular question hasn't yet been studied.  I have looked at enough archaic usage in various D&C revelations, however, that lead me to conclude that much D&C revelatory language was tightly controlled in its delivery to Joseph Smith.  Therefore, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, this and was probably tightly controlled.  Why it's there, remains to be studied and determined. A systematic approach is best, looking at a number of potential examples and non-examples.

Edited December 16, 2016 by champatsch

[mfbukowski]

On 12/14/2016 at 5:30 AM, bcuzbcuz said:

Having corrected more than tens of thousand of middle school and secondary school English compositions over a period of 40 years of teaching, I can assure you that the usage of "and"..."and"...."and"... Is not a rarity in English grammatical structure. True, it is not found in good English literature nor in any of the classical literatures, of any language, because it is just plain poor grammar. But it's daily, average usage in conversation and simple English compositions that lack character and dynamics and good grammar is as common as dirt. 

"But it's daily, average usage in conversation and simple English compositions that lack character and dynamics and good grammar AND is as common as dirt. "

There.

Fixed it for you.

[Jeanne]

On 12/14/2016 at 7:08 AM, churchistrue said:

edited: wrong thread. accidental post.

That was a Jeanne thing to do..

[Benjamin Seeker]

9 hours ago, champatsch said:

Ben, I think what you have quoted can be boiled down to the following:

You're wondering about the intrusive "and" that is seen a lot in the BofM, as in this verse:

The and here was removed by John Gilbert in 1830 (see Skousen, Grammatical Variation, 1:374). It could be a literalistic translation of a Hebraistic construction, similar to this biblical example:

But the D&C presumably doesn't have an underlying Semitic text from which to derive an intrusive and.  To my knowledge, this particular question hasn't yet been studied.  I have looked at enough archaic usage in various D&C revelations, however, that lead me to conclude that much D&C revelatory language was tightly controlled in its delivery to Joseph Smith.  Therefore, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, this and was probably tightly controlled.  Why it's there, remains to be studied and determined. A systematic approach is best, looking at a number of potential examples and non-examples.

Ok. Just what I was looking for and more! Thanks.

[CMZ]

On 12/14/2016 at 5:30 AM, bcuzbcuz said:

"But it's daily, average usage... "

its not it's (in this instance at least)

[Brant Gardner]

On 12/16/2016 at 11:28 AM, champatsch said:

Ben, I think what you have quoted can be boiled down to the following:

You're wondering about the intrusive "and" that is seen a lot in the BofM, as in this verse:

The and here was removed by John Gilbert in 1830 (see Skousen, Grammatical Variation, 1:374). It could be a literalistic translation of a Hebraistic construction, similar to this biblical example:

But the D&C presumably doesn't have an underlying Semitic text from which to derive an intrusive and.  To my knowledge, this particular question hasn't yet been studied.  I have looked at enough archaic usage in various D&C revelations, however, that lead me to conclude that much D&C revelatory language was tightly controlled in its delivery to Joseph Smith.  Therefore, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, this and was probably tightly controlled.  Why it's there, remains to be studied and determined. A systematic approach is best, looking at a number of potential examples and non-examples.

Would you please clarify this? When you suggest that D&C revelations are tightly controlled, are you saying that they contain similar (or perhaps different?) archaic structures such as those you also suggest show tight control for the Book of Mormon?

[Five Solas]

On 12/16/2016 at 10:28 AM, champatsch said:

.. much D&C revelatory language was tightly controlled in its delivery to Joseph Smith. ...

You're making a strong suggestion things weren't quite so tight when it came to Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc.  What might the implication be for readers of those books, knowing what you know?  If the language is loose (opposite of tight), does that not present a hazard, especially to the newbie or investigator?  Should there not, at a minimum, be some cautionary language at the front of those books?  

--Erik 

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 hours ago, Five Solas said:

You're making a strong suggestion things weren't quite so tight when it came to Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc.  What might the implication be for readers of those books, knowing what you know?  If the language is loose (opposite of tight), does that not present a hazard, especially to the newbie or investigator?  Should there not, at a minimum, be some cautionary language at the front of those books?  

--Erik 

Carmack is one of the leading proponents of a tightly controlled language for the BOM. My guess is you misunderstood what his post implies.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

On 12/16/2016 at 1:28 PM, champatsch said:

Ben, I think what you have quoted can be boiled down to the following:

You're wondering about the intrusive "and" that is seen a lot in the BofM, as in this verse:

The and here was removed by John Gilbert in 1830 (see Skousen, Grammatical Variation, 1:374). It could be a literalistic translation of a Hebraistic construction, similar to this biblical example:

But the D&C presumably doesn't have an underlying Semitic text from which to derive an intrusive and.  To my knowledge, this particular question hasn't yet been studied.  I have looked at enough archaic usage in various D&C revelations, however, that lead me to conclude that much D&C revelatory language was tightly controlled in its delivery to Joseph Smith.  Therefore, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, this and was probably tightly controlled.  Why it's there, remains to be studied and determined. A systematic approach is best, looking at a number of potential examples and non-examples.

 

23 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Would you please clarify this? When you suggest that D&C revelations are tightly controlled, are you saying that they contain similar (or perhaps different?) archaic structures such as those you also suggest show tight control for the Book of Mormon?

 

Section 132 should possibly receive special attention in this examination. According to William Clayton, when Hyrum prompted JS to use his seer stone to receive it, JS replied that he didn't need to as he had it memorized. It seems to me that if JS was the receiver only of archaic grammar/syntax then it would be less likely that he would correctly preserve archaic forms by memory. However, if archaic forms are present and correctly used in the text in the same general ratio as other revealed texts, then it's possible these represent a language JS is familiar with.

Of course, the mere presence of archaic forms in D&C have implications about JS' possible familiarity with them, considering they are presumably not translation texts and don't have an obvious pre-dictation translation theory to justify their presence. With D&C we move from archaic forms potentially representing an earlier formed text to representing the language of God or the language of his messenger in the early 19th century.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Section 132 should possibly receive special attention in this examination. According to William Clayton, when Hyrum prompted JS to use his seer stone to receive it, JS replied that he didn't need to as he had it memorized. It seems to me that if JS was the receiver only of archaic grammar/syntax then it would be less likely that he would correctly preserve archaic forms by memory. However, if archaic forms are present and correctly used in the text in the same general ratio as other revealed texts, then it's possible these represent a language JS is familiar with.

Of course, the mere presence of archaic forms in D&C have implications about JS' possible familiarity with them, considering they are presumably not translation texts and don't have an obvious pre-dictation translation theory to justify their presence. With D&C we move from archaic forms potentially representing an earlier formed text to representing the language of God or the language of his messenger in the early 19th century.

Precisely, hence my question to champatch. Given the other times he has used the idea of being tightly controlled, I am thinking that he is suggesting that there is a pre-Joseph source for the grammar in the D&C, but I don't want to assume his position. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Precisely, hence my question to champatch. Given the other times he has used the idea of being tightly controlled, I am thinking that he is suggesting that there is a pre-Joseph source for the grammar in the D&C, but I don't want to assume his position. 

I'm just taking an educated guess at his position, considering his clearly articulated position on the BOM.