An Amicable Brainstorm on the Language and Grammar of the BOM

[clarkgoble]

On 8/11/2017 at 7:23 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

Perfect points.

I also have some suggestions for possible sources of pre-KJV EModE, or at the very least here are some places where EmodE was preserved into the 19th century:

- Psalmody and possibly hymnody with texts dating back to the 1400s

- Grimoires such as Scott Reginald's Discoverie of Witchcraft written pre-KJV and commonly used in 19th century America, along with other varingly old books, for learning folk magic.  

- Oral traditions of Freemasonry

Lastly, I have an inquiry to the hive mind. What was the prayer language of JS' day? Was it archaic to their time period like Mormon prayer language is archaic to ours?

I think the key esoteric translations from the 16th century ought be examined as there are indirect arguments that Joseph may have been exposed to them via his father or other treasure seekers. The oral masonic tradition I'm more skeptical about as I'd expect that to be put in the grammar of the speaker. Perhaps if the ritual was spoken exactly, but I think most of the evidence is that it develops into the form it takes in the US well after the period in question. Plus there's almost no data from the 16th century until the very end let alone transcripts. 

The Grimoires of course should be compared. Not just Scot but also Aggrippa's stuff (both authentic and pseudonominous forgeries) I did a quick Google for books mentioning Agrippa prior to 1700 and there were quite a few. The "History of the Reformation of the Church of England" from 1581 popped up again. (Unfortunately no full text online for some reason) Thomas Nash's Strange Newes from 1592 seemed fruitful. Unfortunately most of the rest were in Latin. 

I know he used in the Interpreter articles comparisons to the EEBO. The EEBO is supposedly pretty comprehensive but I've not been able to find a list of book titles anywhere (not having access). Is there something user facing that doesn't require going through a paywall?

Edited August 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

In a somewhat related vein, have either of you established a timeline for when EmodE begins to disappear from JS' revelations. I ask the question that way because I know Champatsch has said EmodE is present in early JS revelations in a seemingly impossible way similar to the BOM. That made it sound like that at some point pre-KJV EmodE disappears from the revelations.

That would be quite interesting. Weren't some of the early revelations also received via the seer stone or U&T? I wonder if there's a connection.

Quote

This oral tradition is partially documented in the expositions of masonry published during the American antimasonry movement of the early 19th century.

As I said I'm skeptical of this, but there were many exposes at the time one could look at.

I think Jane Lead's writings, while post-16th century, seem to have an archaic style to them.  I searched for a few of the stylistic points that were easy to do based upon the Interpreter articles and didn't find much though. So we can probably dismiss her writing.

Edited August 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the key esoteric translations from the 16th century ought be examined as there are indirect arguments that Joseph may have been exposed to them via his father or other treasure seekers. The oral masonic tradition I'm more skeptical about as I'd expect that to be put in the grammar of the speaker. Perhaps if the ritual was spoken exactly, but I think most of the evidence is that it develops into the form it takes in the US well after the period in question. Plus there's almost no data from the 16th century until the very end let alone transcripts. 

The Grimoires of course should be compared. Not just Scot but also Aggrippa's stuff (both authentic and pseudonominous forgeries) I did a quick Google for books mentioning Agrippa prior to 1700 and there were quite a few. The "History of the Reformation of the Church of England" from 1581 popped up again. (Unfortunately no full text online for some reason) Thomas Nash's Strange Newes from 1592 seemed fruitful. Unfortunately most of the rest were in Latin. 

 

Thanks for bringing up more suggestions here. As far as Masonry goes, I suggested it because in researching the 19th centrury rituals, which are memorized and performed word for word, I found archaic language.

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Thanks for bringing up more suggestions here. As far as Masonry goes, I suggested it because in researching the 19th centrury rituals, which are memorized and performed word for word, I found archaic language.

Right, but I'd lay really good odds language from the 17th not 16th century. (Just going by memory from Stevenson here on the evolution)

Edited August 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right, but I'd lay really good odds language from the 17th not 16th century. (Just going by memory from Stevenson here on the evolution)

I see. That being said, I did specifically find the "did (verb)" construction.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/13/2017 at 2:28 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

...........................................................

I am also wondering if either of you have investigated a number of sources present in the 19th century where pre-KJV possibly survived into the 19th century. The first source is Psalmnody and Hymnody. I'm less certain on the hymn texts, but there are psalm-based texts dating to the 15th and 16th centuries that I believe remained part of the Protestant traditions through the 19th century. The second source is 19th century freemasonry's oral tradition, which preserved archaic grammar, including the "did (insert verb)" structure explored in one of the EmodE interpreter articles I believe. This oral tradition is partially documented in the expositions of masonry published during the American antimasonry movement of the early 19th century. A third source, which I know Champatsch has given some consideration, are older texts present in esoteric circles in the early 19th century, including grimoires and reprinted texts as Clark Goble alluded to in another thread. Which of these sources have either one of you looked into or have you looked at all of them?

Another question -- what was the prayer language of the early 19th century like? Do we have a wide representation of it? Did they have any tendency towards archaic grammar like Mormon prayer language has now?

The most important source (more important than the Bible) should be The Book of Common Prayer, as studied by Bryan Cummings, ed., The Book of Common Prayer:The Texts of 1549, 1559, and 1662 (Oxford, 2013).

As to the Bible, the most popular Bible in Colonial America was the 1539 Great Bible (aka Cromwell's Bible, Cranmer's Bible,etc.) which had the formal approval of Henry VIII.  The later 1611 KJV went through a series of editions, especially in 1769, and thousands of minor changes were made, so that the different editions are recognizable.  The particular KJV most readily available to Joseph Smith would have been the 1828 Phinney Bible published in Cooperstown, NY (with Apocrypha).  Indeed, that is the version later purchased by Oliver for use in making the inspired revision of the Bible.  It was that 1828 edition which I used in creating the apparatus criticus for the first FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text back in 1984. 

Quote

Lastly, I'm curious if either of you have looked for the grammatical structures that don't qualify as EmodE (that look Hebrew or even Egyptian), such as the unnecessary "and" following an interruptive if or when clause, in JS' revelations?

Royal Skousen makes much of the biblical Hebrew conditional construction with an apodosis of "and" as being ungrammatical in English,^[1] e.g., I Nephi 17:50, Helaman 13:28, Moroni 10:4, etc.  Yet, as Brant Gardner points out, the “if/and” construction occurs only 14 times in the Book of Mormon, whereas “if/then” occurs 39 times.^[2]  Moreover, as frequently as not in Hebrew, there is no "and," and the translator simply includes the word or words necessary to make a coherent statement.  In other words, following an appropriate protasis (beginning with 'im "if" or the like in Hebrew,^[3] or Egyptian in or ir "if; when, as" [with the subjunctive, or prospective], or ḥr "because, on account of; through; concerning; and," or via a nonattributive relative clause [with or without the preposition m] in Egyptian^[4]) direct juxtaposition of statements can provide the apodosis.  This is as much an Egyptianism as an Hebraism.

From the Joseph Smith Papyri, Hor Book of Breathing, I, lines 7-9, 

        ir ir.tw n.f mdЗt tn                                   (7) If this papyrus-roll is made for him,

        ḫr snsn.f mi bЗ(w) ntrw r nḥḥ ḥnˁ dt       then he will (8) breathe like the bas of the gods forever and (9) ever.

Or as in Book of the Dead spell 17:18 (following Faulkner), 

         wdЗ.f wdЗ.i ts phr                   (If) he be well, (then) will I be well, (and) vice-versa.

---

^[1] R. Skousen, "Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review, 6/1 (1994):132-134; Skousen, “Hebrew Conditionals in the Book of Mormon,” in Welch & Thorne, eds., Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon (FARMS, 1999), which had appeared as  “Hebraic Elements in the Language of the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Update #115, in Insights, Dec 1997.

^[2] Gardner, Gift & Power (Kofford, 2011), 173 and n. 47; cf. Gardner, “Silk or Sow’s Ear? The Apologetic use of the If>And Construction,” Interpreter Blog, Oct 13, 2013, online at   .

^[3] Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Prentice-Hall, 1971), 196.

^[4] J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 19.6.1 - 19.7, 26.24; J. E. Hoch, Middle Egyptian Grammar, SSEA Publ. XV (Mississauga, Canada: Benben Publ., 1997), 137-139; A. H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3^rd ed., 216, 444.  John Gee agrees that this can be true of both Egyptian and Hebrew, and insists that it is "impossible English" ("Language in the Book of Mormon," a Special Feature of Journey of Faith: The New World [2007], DVD).

Edited August 14, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[champatsch]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet, as Brant Gardner points out, the “if/and” construction occurs only 14 times in the Book of Mormon, whereas “if/then” occurs 39 times.

The subordinator used before BofM intrusive and:

after 5
as 4
because 1
had (if) 1
if 16
when 14
while 1

This is from a quick count of GV, 366-374.

[champatsch]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I see. That being said, I did specifically find the "did (verb)" construction.

When considering the "did <infinitive>" construction, it's important to look at it systematically: textual rate, syntactic distribution, and individual verb use tendencies. Also, make sure the did usage is not clearly emphatic.

The matching between an array of EModE and BofM usage is extensive.  From what I've seen, I don't think familiarity with usage in the texts mentioned was sufficient to give Joseph implicit knowledge of the array of archaic syntax and vocabulary seen in the BofM. To do this subject justice, you need to describe a large amount of usage that matches a large amount of BofM usage.

The following is a brief overview of the verbal system of the BofM and will be all I have time for now, as I'll be away for a couple of weeks.

The verbal system is the core of grammar.

Present tense: heavy inflectional -th use with 3sg subjects, but there is significant -s use (about 7.5%). Also, a large number of -th plural examples (200 or so), and fewer -s plural examples (a significant number of these if we count "things which is").  Significant non-emphatic do-periphrasis ("doth vary", "do stumble", etc.). Some of these are exclusively archaic, like the -th plural and the do-periphrasis.  The latter two are more characteristic of the 1500s than the 1600s, but still found then.  Overall, it's not like the KJB or pseudo-biblical texts but is genuinely archaic.

Past tense:  30% positive did used with infinitives (excluding lengthy biblical passages), 90% adjacency "did <verb>", some archaic simple past-tense.  Best fit is mid to late 1500s, but "did do" and "do do" mainly found in 1600s.  Overall, it's not like the KJB or pseudo-biblical texts but is genuinely archaic.

Perfect tense:  20% leveled past participle forms in the pluperfect, less in present perfect, some with modal perfects, and even passive perfects, like "was wrote", "be fell", and "had been spake".  The string "been spake" (Alma 6:8) is attested currently only three times, in the 1600s (last one in 1699).  (If someone finds "had/have (not) been spake" later, let me know.)  Best fit is the 1600s.  The KJB doesn't employ past-tense forms for past participles.  Tyndale used "had smote", maybe other forms as well.  Overall, it's not like the KJB or pseudo-biblical texts but is genuinely archaic.

Future tense:  Inversion rate of will/shall auxiliaries and pronoun subjects after then is like 1568 Bishops' Bible (about 85%), less like KJB (only about 50%) ("then will/shall I" versus "then I will/shall", etc.).  Percentage usage of will versus shall with pronouns is a good match with KJB OT (1sg, 1pl, 2nd, 3sg, 3pl; I, we, thou/ye/you, he/she/it, they).  I haven't studied this area carefully enough, but at this point future-tense usage in the BofM appears to be fairly close to KJB usage and even some pseudo-biblical usage.

The verbal system (as well as a lot of other linguistic evidence, including archaic/obsolete vocabulary) suggests that broad EModE competence was somehow involved in rendering the BofM into English.  If we exclude a variety of exceptional elements, it strikes me that even an English philologist would have had difficulty formulating and structuring the text since it shows such intimate familiarity with many genuinely archaic forms and structures.

[champatsch]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

EEBO is supposedly pretty comprehensive but I've not been able to find a list of book titles anywhere.

Here's a sortable spreadsheet with about 50,000 titles, made a couple of years ago:  lg dot <surname> dot cc slash eebo dot 7z.

Also, three high-quality pseudo-biblical texts will be freely available in the WordCruncher Bookstore within a few days.

[clarkgoble]

34 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Here's a sortable spreadsheet with about 50,000 titles, made a couple of years ago:  lg dot <surname> dot cc slash eebo dot 7z.

Also, three high-quality pseudo-biblical texts will be freely available in the WordCruncher Bookstore within a few days.

Thanks a ton. I'll check that out later tonight. 

[Physics Guy]

Are there any prospects for getting the EModE BofM theory published in a mainstream linguistic journal? If there's really smoking-gun evidence that a well-known text popularly dated to the 19th century is somehow derived from a much earlier source, or something, then that should be publishable in a secular journal of some kind.

[Benjamin Seeker]

On 8/14/2017 at 11:31 AM, champatsch said:

When considering the "did <infinitive>" construction, it's important to look at it systematically: textual rate, syntactic distribution, and individual verb use tendencies. Also, make sure the did usage is not clearly emphatic.

The matching between an array of EModE and BofM usage is extensive.  From what I've seen, I don't think familiarity with usage in the texts mentioned was sufficient to give Joseph implicit knowledge of the array of archaic syntax and vocabulary seen in the BofM. To do this subject justice, you need to describe a large amount of usage that matches a large amount of BofM usage.

The following is a brief overview of the verbal system of the BofM and will be all I have time for now, as I'll be away for a couple of weeks.

The verbal system is the core of grammar.

Present tense: heavy inflectional -th use with 3sg subjects, but there is significant -s use (about 7.5%). Also, a large number of -th plural examples (200 or so), and fewer -s plural examples (a significant number of these if we count "things which is").  Significant non-emphatic do-periphrasis ("doth vary", "do stumble", etc.). Some of these are exclusively archaic, like the -th plural and the do-periphrasis.  The latter two are more characteristic of the 1500s than the 1600s, but still found then.  Overall, it's not like the KJB or pseudo-biblical texts but is genuinely archaic.

Past tense:  30% positive did used with infinitives (excluding lengthy biblical passages), 90% adjacency "did <verb>", some archaic simple past-tense.  Best fit is mid to late 1500s, but "did do" and "do do" mainly found in 1600s.  Overall, it's not like the KJB or pseudo-biblical texts but is genuinely archaic.

Perfect tense:  20% leveled past participle forms in the pluperfect, less in present perfect, some with modal perfects, and even passive perfects, like "was wrote", "be fell", and "had been spake".  The string "been spake" (Alma 6:8) is attested currently only three times, in the 1600s (last one in 1699).  (If someone finds "had/have (not) been spake" later, let me know.)  Best fit is the 1600s.  The KJB doesn't employ past-tense forms for past participles.  Tyndale used "had smote", maybe other forms as well.  Overall, it's not like the KJB or pseudo-biblical texts but is genuinely archaic.

Future tense:  Inversion rate of will/shall auxiliaries and pronoun subjects after then is like 1568 Bishops' Bible (about 85%), less like KJB (only about 50%) ("then will/shall I" versus "then I will/shall", etc.).  Percentage usage of will versus shall with pronouns is a good match with KJB OT (1sg, 1pl, 2nd, 3sg, 3pl; I, we, thou/ye/you, he/she/it, they).  I haven't studied this area carefully enough, but at this point future-tense usage in the BofM appears to be fairly close to KJB usage and even some pseudo-biblical usage.

The verbal system (as well as a lot of other linguistic evidence, including archaic/obsolete vocabulary) suggests that broad EModE competence was somehow involved in rendering the BofM into English.  If we exclude a variety of exceptional elements, it strikes me that even an English philologist would have had difficulty formulating and structuring the text since it shows such intimate familiarity with many genuinely archaic forms and structures.

This is a fantastic amount of info. Thank you.

One of the data points you mentioned gave me an idea. You said that the BOM usage of a certain grammatical structure outdid usage in any other text you have examined by quite a bit. Assuming for the moment that every archaic grammatical structure found in the BOM could be found in JS's environment (and I realize that this would need to be demonstrated, at least in large part), I wonder if it's possible that JS in consciously or unconsciously creating an authoritative scriptural voice could have been drawn to these archaic structures and even overdone them in some instances.

In reading or hearing old texts it may have been easy to pick out archaic forms relative to the day, and even relative to the KJV given early 19th century conversance with the Bible, since they would have seemed foreign or wrong. The possibility that JS had a prodigious memory needs to be considered as well. Remember, when Hyrum prompted JS to dictate section 132 using the seer stone for Emma, JS responded that he didn't need to because he had the thing memorized (132 is a sizable chunk of text to have memorized on the fly). Also, the large quotations of KJV that made it onto the BOM manuscript with no text to copy from in the room, according to multiple witnesses, could be evidence of JS's memory. If he indeed had an extroardinary gift of memory for text and language -- and add to that a deep interest in language -- then it wouldn't be out of the question for him to have held onto archaic forms that likely would have jumped out to him as they do to us. It's also worth pointing out JS was likely prone to come across these archaic forms given his interest in esoteric and religious subjects. 

If he then drew on these archaic forms heavily to give his text authority and perhaps an ancient feel he may have been able to create a text that uses archaic grammar in a way that seems out of place and even impossible for the time period. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/12/2017 at 11:12 PM, cdowis said:

Please help me.

My memory tells me that there is a phrase to "land in the presence of the Lord" which is used like a boat landing.  But I can't find it.  Am I crazy or senile?

Maybe Jona 1:3 to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

Psalm 62:7 My help and glory are in God—granite-strength and safe-harbor-God—

Psalm 107:30 safe haven

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe Jona 1:3 to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

Psalm 62:7 My help and glory are in God—granite-strength and safe-harbor-God—

Psalm 107:30 safe haven

I thought the BOM had that phrase but it is no longer there, or my memory is faulty.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

I thought the BOM had that phrase but it is no longer there, or my memory is faulty.

You may be recollecting a Conference talk, or something from outside Holy Writ.