Bernard Gui Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Quote 2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new. Some contributors have studied unusual grammatical constructions in the Book of Mormon. While reading 3 Nephi 15, I came across this passage. I understand what it means, but it is not written in a manner that I would recognize as a modern English speaker. Any comments would be appreciated.
CV75 Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Some contributors have studied unusual grammatical constructions in the Book of Mormon. While reading 3 Nephi 15, I came across this passage. I understand what it means, but it is not written in a manner that I would recognize as a modern English speaker. Any comments would be appreciated. The phrase, "what he would" is the Reformed Egyptian version of "whatever". Just kidding...
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Quote who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses Some contributors have studied unusual grammatical constructions in the Book of Mormon. While reading 3 Nephi 15, I came across this passage. I understand what it means, but it is not written in a manner that I would recognize as a modern English speaker........................... They marveled-and-wondered whatever they were wont concerning the Law of Moses, i.e., each one drew whatever wild conclusions he wished concerning the Torah. Does that accord with your understanding, Bernard?
bluebell Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) If you assume that they just forgot the word 'do' it makes total sense. Edited June 1, 2018 by bluebell 1
SouthernMo Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 I can’t remember where I read this, but it is possible that the original typesetter for the Book of Mormon may have made some mistakes that have been carried through the years. Notably, this is one possible explanation for the KJV mistranslations in the BoM. The theory being that the typesetter saw that some BoM verses came from the Bible, and simply utilized the Bible as a guide, rather than the manuscript. Good catch & question!
Bernard Gui Posted June 1, 2018 Author Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: They marveled-and-wondered whatever they were wont concerning the Law of Moses, i.e., each one drew whatever wild conclusions he wished concerning the Torah. Does that accord with your understanding, Bernard? My understanding is that since he had told them that old things were done away, they were wondering what he wanted them to do with the Law of Moses which they had been living since Lehi's time. My question is about the wording which is quite unusual to my eyes and ears. Just more 19th century American or more of the earlier English syntax we have been discussing here...."wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses."
Bernard Gui Posted June 1, 2018 Author Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, bluebell said: If you assume that they just forgot the word 'do' it makes total sense. Agreed, but given the other curious wordings in the BoM that turn out to have good explanations, I was wondering if this was one of those. Who forgot it? 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 1, 2018 Author Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: I can’t remember where I read this, but it is possible that the original typesetter for the Book of Mormon may have made some mistakes that have been carried through the years. Notably, this is one possible explanation for the KJV mistranslations in the BoM. The theory being that the typesetter saw that some BoM verses came from the Bible, and simply utilized the Bible as a guide, rather than the manuscript. Good catch & question! I don't have access to Bro Skousen's work. Perhaps someone who does could check this passage to find out.
Hamba Tuhan Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 Would, despite having become an important auxiliary verb in current English, is simply the past tense of will. (In the same way that should is the past tense of shall and could is the past tense of can.) And will, despite also having become an important auxiliary verb in current English, in its original usage simply meant 'to want,* to desire'. The phrase in question therefore means the following: 'some ... wondered what he wanted/desired concerning the law of Moses'. ----- * In its original usage, to want meant 'to lack'. It has now assumed the meaning originally expressed by to will, probably because we have come to rely upon the latter so much as an auxiliary verb denoting future tense. In older forms of English, I will go = I want to go, and I want food = I don't have any food. Likewise, I would go = I wanted to go. 4
Glenn101 Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I don't have access to Bro Skousen's work. Perhaps someone who does could check this passage to find out. You might want to dial a message to Stanford Carmack. This might be one of those pesky Early Modern English constructs. He goes by the handle of Chamspatch or something of the sort on this board. Glenn
Robert F. Smith Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: My understanding is that since he had told them that old things were done away, they were wondering what he wanted them to do with the Law of Moses which they had been living since Lehi's time. My question is about the wording which is quite unusual to my eyes and ears. Just more 19th century American or more of the earlier English syntax we have been discussing here...."wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses." Quote would (heading) As a past-tense form of will. (obsolete) Wished, desired (something). [9th-19thc.] (archaic) Wanted to ( + bare infinitive). [from 9thc.] quotations ▼ ................. ............................... (archaic) Used with ellipsis of the infinitive verb, or postponement to a relative clause, in various senses. [from 9thc.] quotations ▼ Was determined to; loosely, could naturally have been expected to (given the tendencies of someone's character etc.). [from 18thc.] quotations ▼ (heading) As a modal verb, the subjunctive of will. Used to give a conditional or potential "softening" to the present; might, might wish. [from 9thc.] quotations ▼ Used as the auxiliary of the simple conditional modality (with a bare infinitive); indicating an action or state that is conditional on another. [from 9thc.] quotations ▼ (chiefly archaic) Might wish ( + verb in past subjunctive); often used in the first person (with or without that) in the sense of "if only". [from 13thc.] quotations ▼ Used to impart a sense of hesitancy or uncertainty to the present; might be inclined to. Now sometimes colloquially with ironic effect. [from 15thc.] quotations ▼ .............................. (chiefly archaic, transitive or control verb) Might desire; wish (something). [from 15thc.] quotations ▼ Usage notes[edit] ................................ Indicating a wish, would takes a clause in the past subjunctive (irrealis) mood; this clause may or may not be introduced with that. Most commonly in modern usage, it is followed by the adverb rather, as in I would rather that he go now. A call to a deity or other higher power is sometimes interposed after would and before the subjunctive clause, as in Would to God that […] ; see the citations page for examples. When used, mainly archaically, in the sense of "if only", the first-person subject pronoun is often omitted. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/would . Edited June 2, 2018 by Robert F. Smith 1
Ryan Dahle Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Some contributors have studied unusual grammatical constructions in the Book of Mormon. While reading 3 Nephi 15, I came across this passage. I understand what it means, but it is not written in a manner that I would recognize as a modern English speaker. Any comments would be appreciated. I suspect is is pretty solid EModE and fairly rare in the 19th century, but it would have to be carefully looked at. I did find a similar construction in Esther and in Romans: Esther 9:5 5 Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them. Romans 7:15 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Paiute Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: My understanding is that since he had told them that old things were done away, they were wondering what he wanted them to do with the Law of Moses which they had been living since Lehi's time. My question is about the wording which is quite unusual to my eyes and ears. Just more 19th century American or more of the earlier English syntax we have been discussing here...."wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses." They were asking the Lord what his will was concerning the law of Moses. In the past tense of "will." --------- Origin of willed Middle English word dating back to 1350–1400; see origin at will2, -ed3 will1 [wil] auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person will, 2nd will or (Archaic)wilt, 3rd will, present plural will; past singular 1st person would, 2ndwould or (Archaic) wouldst, 3rd would, past plural would; past participle (Obsolete) wold or would; imperative, infinitive, and present participle lacking.
The Nehor Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 They were really tired of stoning people to death for collecting sticks to start a fire on the sabbath. They were running out of stones and were hoping this would solve the problem. 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Paiute said: They were asking the Lord what his will was concerning the law of Moses. In the past tense of "will." --------- Origin of willed Middle English word dating back to 1350–1400; see origin at will2, -ed3 will1 [wil] auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person will, 2nd will or (Archaic)wilt, 3rd will, present plural will; past singular 1st person would, 2ndwould or (Archaic) wouldst, 3rd would, past plural would; past participle (Obsolete) wold or would; imperative, infinitive, and present participle lacking. Thanks, but you misunderstand my question. I stipulated in the OP that I know what I means. I’m asking about the syntax of this phrase: They wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses." Edited June 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: I suspect is is pretty solid EModE and fairly rare in the 19th century, but it would have to be carefully looked at. I did find a similar construction in Esther and in Romans: Esther 9:5 5 Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them. Romans 7:15 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. Interesting. Thanks for sharing the comparable examples. I found two similar ones in the D&C. This one seems to me to be like the way the question in 3 Nephi might be answered: Quote D&C 46:6 And again I say unto you, concerning your confirmation meetings, that if there be any that are not of the church, that are earnestly seeking after the kingdom, ye shall not cast them out. 7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils. Quote 2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he wouldconcerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new. He may have answered, Quote 3 And he said unto them: [I would that ye] marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new. 4 Behold, [I would that ye understand] that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. 5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end. 6 Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in m Edited June 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 5 hours ago, Glenn101 said: You might want to dial a message to Stanford Carmack. This might be one of those pesky Early Modern English constructs. He goes by the handle of Chamspatch or something of the sort on this board. Glenn I would love to here what he has to say. I hesitate bothering him, though.
Bernard Gui Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Would, despite having become an important auxiliary verb in current English, is simply the past tense of will. (In the same way that should is the past tense of shall and could is the past tense of can.) And will, despite also having become an important auxiliary verb in current English, in its original usage simply meant 'to want,* to desire'. The phrase in question therefore means the following: 'some ... wondered what he wanted/desired concerning the law of Moses'. ----- * In its original usage, to want meant 'to lack'. It has now assumed the meaning originally expressed by to will, probably because we have come to rely upon the latter so much as an auxiliary verb denoting future tense. In older forms of English, I will go = I want to go, and I want food = I don't have any food. Likewise, I would go = I wanted to go. Thanks, HT. I know what it means. I was curious about the syntax...it’s not something we normally see. For example, like if a question were formed like this: “When the deacons read that Jesus said, ‘That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him,’ some among them marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the Word of Wisdom, not understanding that the old thing had passed away, and the thing had become new.” Edited June 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui
USU78 Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Thanks, but you misunderstand my question. I stipulated in the OP that I know what I means. I’m asking about the syntax of this phrase: They wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses." It's meant to be taken as subjunctive would, not past tense would. 1
Popular Post champatsch Posted June 2, 2018 Popular Post Posted June 2, 2018 The meaning of would in 3n1502 seems stronger than 'desired'. Maybe 'intended' or 'required'. Consider these Oxford English Dictionary definitions and examples. Definitions †3. Denoting expression (usually authoritative) of a wish or intention: Determine, decree, ordain, enjoin, give order (that something be done). Obs. 23. Desired, wished; often implying ‘intended’; determined, ordained; fig. demanded, required (that something should be done). Obs. or rare arch. Examples 1560 in Feuillerat Revels Q. Eliz. (1908) 112 [OED] We woll and commaunde that Imediatly vppon the sight hereof ye delyuer‥vnto Sir Thomas Benger [etc.]. 1567, EEBO A12940 Geue me nowe Maister Horn Princes Prophetes, geue me Princes, and Lawe makers by speciall order and ap⸗pointmente ordeyned of God, to whose woordes God cer⸗tainly woulde haue geuen as greate authority, as he wolde and commaunded to be geuen to Moyses: and then per⸗chaunce I will say, that ye saye somewhat well to the pur⸗pose. (page 44) 1535 Coverdale Bible 1 Macc. iv. 27 [OED] Because Israel had not gotten soch mysfortune as he wolde they shulde. 1611 King James Bible Who when hee heard thereof, was confounded, and diſcouraged, becauſe neither ſuch things as he would, were done vnto Iſrael, nor ſuch things as the king commanded him were come to paſſe. 1 Maccabees 4:27 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE) When he heard it he was disturbed and discouraged, because things had not turned out in Israel as he intended and as the king had ordered. 1542 Udall Erasm. Apoph. 327 [OED] He would his richesse to bee a cloke of goodnesse. 1600 Shakes. A.Y.L. iii. ii. 161 [OED] Heauen would that shee these gifts should haue. 1682 Bunyan Holy War (1905) 263 [OED] He would that Captain Credence should join himself with them. 1868 Tennyson Lucretius 68 [OED] Because I would not one of thine own doves, Not ev'n a rose, were offer'd to thee. 5
Bernard Gui Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 1 hour ago, champatsch said: The meaning of would in 3n1502 seems stronger than 'desired'. Maybe 'intended' or 'required'. Consider these Oxford English Dictionary definitions and examples. Definitions †3. Denoting expression (usually authoritative) of a wish or intention: Determine, decree, ordain, enjoin, give order (that something be done). Obs. 23. Desired, wished; often implying ‘intended’; determined, ordained; fig. demanded, required (that something should be done). Obs. or rare arch. Examples 1560 in Feuillerat Revels Q. Eliz. (1908) 112 [OED] We woll and commaunde that Imediatly vppon the sight hereof ye delyuer‥vnto Sir Thomas Benger [etc.]. 1567, EEBO A12940 Geue me nowe Maister Horn Princes Prophetes, geue me Princes, and Lawe makers by speciall order and ap⸗pointmente ordeyned of God, to whose woordes God cer⸗tainly woulde haue geuen as greate authority, as he wolde and commaunded to be geuen to Moyses: and then per⸗chaunce I will say, that ye saye somewhat well to the pur⸗pose. (page 44) 1535 Coverdale Bible 1 Macc. iv. 27 [OED] Because Israel had not gotten soch mysfortune as he wolde they shulde. 1611 King James Bible Who when hee heard thereof, was confounded, and diſcouraged, becauſe neither ſuch things as he would, were done vnto Iſrael, nor ſuch things as the king commanded him were come to paſſe. 1 Maccabees 4:27 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE) When he heard it he was disturbed and discouraged, because things had not turned out in Israel as he intended and as the king had ordered. 1542 Udall Erasm. Apoph. 327 [OED] He would his richesse to bee a cloke of goodnesse. 1600 Shakes. A.Y.L. iii. ii. 161 [OED] Heauen would that shee these gifts should haue. 1682 Bunyan Holy War (1905) 263 [OED] He would that Captain Credence should join himself with them. 1868 Tennyson Lucretius 68 [OED] Because I would not one of thine own doves, Not ev'n a rose, were offer'd to thee. Thank you for taking the time to make this response. Is this consistent with 19th century English or is it another example of earlier English?
champatsch Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 Earlier English. The Tennyson example is of course poetic, which is where archaisms tend to be found last. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 On 6/1/2018 at 5:43 PM, Bernard Gui said: My understanding is that since he had told them that old things were done away, they were wondering what he wanted them to do with the Law of Moses which they had been living since Lehi's time. My question is about the wording which is quite unusual to my eyes and ears. Just more 19th century American or more of the earlier English syntax we have been discussing here...."wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses." It does not sound alll that awkward to me, just an archaic way of saying “wondered what he wanted concerning the law of Moses.” Consider the comparable phrasing in Exodus: “Would that all God’s people were prophets and that he would put his Spirit on each of them.” In other words, “I wish that all God’s people were prophets.” 1
Ryan Dahle Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 (edited) On 6/2/2018 at 11:39 AM, Bernard Gui said: Thank you for taking the time to make this response. Is this consistent with 19th century English or is it another example of earlier English? On 6/2/2018 at 12:54 PM, champatsch said: Earlier English. The Tennyson example is of course poetic, which is where archaisms tend to be found last. I noticed today, while reading 1 Nephi that this construction came up in 1 Nephi 17:1: "And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed." I searched for "would that" and found dozens (over 70) of similar constructions in the Book of Mormon . All of them use this archaic form of would right before object clauses. The same (non-thorough) search showed that the Bible used this form much less frequently. I checked the word would in the following: The Late War, View of the Hebrews, The First Book of the American Chronicles of the Times, The American Revolution, and the First Book of Napoleon. I only found one use of archaic would, which turned up in Leacock's book. All other instances were auxiliary in nature. I didn't check for will, and its likely that some examples were missed because of OCR errors. No doubt, archaic would/will was still known and being used in Joseph Smith's day, but he seemed to use it far more than (at least these) contemporary authors did in their pseudo-biblical writings. Interestingly, the Doctrine and Covenants has many occurrences of "will that" usually "I will that." This usually occurs when the lord is pronouncing his will. It should be noted, however, that these searches were conducted hastily, so much more careful analysis would be needed to say anything definitive on the matter. These preliminary findings are interesting though. Edited June 4, 2018 by Ryan Dahle
Bernard Gui Posted June 4, 2018 Author Posted June 4, 2018 3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: I noticed today, while reading 1 Nephi that this construction came up in 1 Nephi 17:1: "And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed." I searched for "would that" and found dozens (over 70) of similar constructions in the Book of Mormon . All of them use this archaic form of would right before object clauses. The same (non-thorough) search showed that the Bible used this form much less frequently. I checked the word would in the following: The Late War, View of the Hebrews, The First Book of the American Chronicles of the Times, The American Revolution, and the First Book of Napoleon. I only found one use of archaic would, which turned up in Leacock's book. All other instances were auxiliary in nature. I didn't check for will, and its likely that some examples were missed because of OCR errors. No doubt, archaic would/will was still known and being used in Joseph Smith's day, but he seemed to use it far more than (at least these) contemporary authors did in their pseudo-biblical writings. Interestingly, the Doctrine and Covenants has many occurrences of "will that" usually "I will that." This usually occurs when the lord is pronouncing his will. It should be noted, however, that these searches were conducted hastily, so much more careful analysis would be needed to say anything definitive on the matter. These preliminary findings are interesting though. Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. What struck me about the 3 Nephi quote was the lack of of a that phrase following the would. I understand what was meant , but that passage seemed odd to me. Quote 2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new. Maybe my feelers are too sensitive.
Recommended Posts