Emode as Proof Js Did Not Write Bom

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think you misunderstand. Acceptance of the EModE data doesn't necessarily mean that Joseph was using a physical EModE manuscript for his dictation. I personally think Joseph translated the text in the manner reported by the witnesses. I just accept the fact that the text that was revealed to him had pockets of systematic EModE features in it. 

Also, Carmack does indeed have the expertise to make his argument. He is probably the most qualified person in the world to comment on such matters because he has both the formal linguistic background and training, and also because and has spent years of applying that expertise to this specific situation. 

Don't confuse the Brethren Skousen and Carmack, respectively.    (I'm not denigrating the latter's credentials, expertise, or ability; I'm simply pointing out that while the former, by training, is a linguist, the latter is not.)

[champatsch]

3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Do you understand that IF Dr. Carmack had the expertise to make his argument, there'd be peer support for it?  Peer support and expertise go hand-in-hand, at least from that required in a court of law.  I suppose one could accept voodoo expertise, and that is what Dr. Carmack's work appears to be, but I don't.

You haven't given evidence that you understand the linguistic issues very well. I don't expect expertise, but a little more than "Spake appears about 40 times in Shakespeare". That suggests that you might not have a good grasp of the subject matter.

The comparative data will probably appear in journals at some point. I guess you can wait till then to make up your mind.

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree that we should have fair and representative statistics.  You are alleging that Carmack has not done due diligence.  You (or someone you cite) should be prepared to make that actual case.

Carmack has basically confirmed what I thought. These are his main sources:

• EEBO-TCP (15th-16th c.) Phase 1 has 25,368 texts transcribed
• EEBO-TCP (15th-16th c.) Phase 2 has 34,963 texts transcribed
• ECCO-TCP (18th c.) has around 3,000 texts transcribed (Carmack says he has recently added the full 180,000 title collection to his set of personal databases) 
• Carmack's WordCruncher database of Evans (mostly 18th c.) "contains about 5,000 of the 40,000 titles available in the online Evans Early American Imprints collection." Only 2 titles date after 1800. 

Carmack says he has also checked Google Books and Shaw-Shoemaker. As Carmack himself has pointed out, Google Books does not offer a representative sample of early 19th-century writing. It doesn't include any journals or periodicals, for example, and omits books with poor OCR quality. Shaw-Shoemaker "contains virtually every book, pamphlet and broadside published in America during the first decades of the 19th century" but Carmack say he has only "limited access" to that database, which I guess explains why he hasn't used it much (at all?). He appears not have checked any databases of early American newspapers — by far the largest repository of early 19th-century writing. As far as I can see from his articles, the main Joseph Smith-era sources he works with are "25 pseudobiblical texts and counting."

Edited August 4, 2020 by Nevo

[Bob Crockett]

12 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Your observations here, though interesting, aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't/won't care one bit about these things, if they don't interest them and fit into their current worldview. I showed many things to a globally well-known linguist that I had briefly worked with 20 years earlier. He knew nothing about the Book of Mormon. He told me he thought it had a lot of Early Modern English in it. It didn't affect him beyond that mere observation in any way. He wasn't an anti-Mormon, so he didn't deny the presence of extrabiblical archaism, but he wasn't interested in exploring it further.

I've performed stylometric analyses as part of my work, syntactostylistics, with more than 200,000 texts.

OK.  Peer support please.  

[Ryan Dahle]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

Don't confuse the Brethren Skousen and Carmack, respectively.    (I'm not denigrating the latter's credentials, expertise, or ability; I'm simply pointing out that while the former, by training, is a linguist, the latter is not.)

"Linguist": a person who studies linguistics

"Linguistics": the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, historical-comparative linguistics, and applied linguistics.

Stanford Carmack's bio from Interpreter: "Stanford Carmack has a linguistics and a law degree from Stanford University as well as a doctorate in Hispanic Languages and Literature from the University of California, Santa Barbara, specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis. He currently researches Book of Mormon syntax and lexis as they relate to English usage and contributes to aspects of the Book of Mormon critical text project carried out by Royal Skousen."

Edited August 4, 2020 by Ryan Dahle

[Bob Crockett]

5 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Carmack has basically confirmed what I thought. These are his main sources:

• EEBO-TCP (15th-16th c.) Phase 1 has 25,368 texts transcribed
• EEBO-TCP (15th-16th c.) Phase 2 has 34,963 texts transcribed
• ECCO-TCP (18th c.) has around 3,000 texts transcribed (Carmack says he has recently added the full 180,000 title collection to his set of personal databases) 
• Carmack's WordCruncher database of Evans (mostly 18th c.) "contains about 5,000 of the 40,000 titles available in the online Evans Early American Imprints collection." Only 2 titles date after 1800. 

Carmack says he has also checked Google Books and Shaw-Shoemaker. As Carmack himself has pointed out, Google Books does not offer a representative sample of early 19th-century writing. It doesn't include any journals or periodicals, for example. Shaw-Shoemaker "contains virtually every book, pamphlet and broadside published in America during the first decades of the 19th century" but Carmack say he has only "limited access" to that database, which I guess explains why he hasn't used it much. He appears not have checked any databases of early American newspapers — by far the largest repository of 19th-century writing. As far as I can see from his articles, the main 19th-century sources he works with are "25 pseudobiblical texts and counting."

I don't get Carmack's use of sources.   "Hath smote," for example, is contained in lots of 19th Century poetry.

[champatsch]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Don't confuse the Brethren Skousen and Carmack, respectively.    (I'm not denigrating the latter's credentials, expertise, or ability; I'm simply pointing out that while the former, by training, is a linguist, the latter is not.)

I sometimes work in collaboration with Skousen and I have various degrees, one in linguistics from Stanford (also a law degree), another in Spanish, and another in Hispanic Languages and Literature (doctorate), specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis (Old Catalan, Old Spanish). I began intensive computational studies of language in 1991, pausing between 1999 and 2012, and then resuming in 2013.

[Bob Crockett]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

"Linguist": a person who studies linguistics

"Linguistics": the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, historical-comparative linguistics, and applied linguistics.

Stanford Carmack's bio from Interpreter: "Stanford Carmack has a linguistics and a law degree from Stanford University as well as a doctorate in Hispanic Languages and Literature from the University of California, Santa Barbara, specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis. He currently researches Book of Mormon syntax and lexis as they relate to English usage and contributes to aspects of the Book of Mormon critical text project carried out by Royal Skousen."

I just don't see his expertise.  I would expect a doctorate in middle English literature, like a woman I used to employ as a lawyer who was an expert in Beowulf. 

[champatsch]

18 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Carmack says he has recently added the full 180,000 title collection to his set of personal databases

Please don't misrepresent. As I just said, I've been looking at this entire database (ECCO, which is riddled with OCR errors) for several years. Now I have at my command 195,000 precisely searchable ECCO texts (large amount of duplication) as two extremely large WordCruncher ebooks.

Also, I've been looking at Google Books for years, into the 1800s.

Edited August 4, 2020 by champatsch

[Ryan Dahle]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

I just don't see his expertise.  I would expect a doctorate in middle English literature, like a woman I used to employ as a lawyer who was an expert in Beowulf. 

First of all, the Book of Mormon features we are talking about are primarily from the Early Modern period, not "Middle English" or "Olde English" as you keep bringing up. 

Second of all, his formal training in historical syntax is exactly the type of background that lends itself well to a study of the Book of Mormon's syntax. 

[Nevo]

3 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Please don't misrepresent. As I just said, I've been looking at this entire database (ECCO, which is riddled with OCR errors) for several years. Now I have at my command 195,000 precisely searchable ECCO texts (large amount of duplication) as two extremely large WordCruncher ebooks.

Didn't mean to misrepresent. I'm not disputing that you've looked at a lot of 18th century English literature.

[champatsch]

17 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I just don't see his expertise.  I would expect a doctorate in middle English literature, like a woman I used to employ as a lawyer who was an expert in Beowulf. 

The best doctorate would be in early modern English linguistics, but there are many people who work and publish in the field without such a doctorate. Of course I worked for years with texts of the same vintage as late ME and EModE in languages that I didn't understand as well as I do English.

Let's see, by this logic my wife, who studied to be a vet in the German language in Bern CH, speaking Swiss German in her day-to-day life at the time, isn't trustworthy as a vet working in the United States in the English language. Oh wait, she's done just that in several different states and localities and has even taught anatomy in English.

Edited August 4, 2020 by champatsch

[champatsch]

Stylometric scans of 195,000 ECCO texts showed that the Book of Mormon's PRP and clausal complementation patterns died out. I found no matching texts in ECCO, except for reprinted early modern texts.

Furthermore, JS's early writings show starkly different linguistic preferences in a number of domains.

[churchistrue]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Grant Hardy, who does not agree with Carmack & Skousen on this, would have been a far better choice.

 

I thought Grant Hardy was mostly aligned with Carmack/Skousen. No?

[Kenngo1969]

35 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I just don't see his expertise.  I would expect a doctorate in middle English literature, like a woman I used to employ as a lawyer who was an expert in Beowulf. 

The correspondence with (or presence of) Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon was an unexpected discovery.  Why would you expect someone who makes an unexpected discovery necessarily to have a degree in a discipline that's related to the discovery?  It seems to me that that would rather be like dismissing the preliminary finding of an emergency physician that one has a cardiac problem simply because said physician isn't a cardiologist (yes, it's true that potentially, my analogy is a life-and-death matter, while the matters under discussion here are not, but still ...).  It's too bad that Brigham Young University doesn't have anyone on the faculty with an advanced degree in Early Modern English Lit (or that there's no one elsewhere with a degree in that discipline) who can take a look at the findings of the Messrs. Carmack and Skousen.

Oh.

Wait ...

P.S. Should we dismiss your research into Mountain Meadows simply because you're not an historian?

Edited August 4, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

24 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The best doctorate would be in early modern English linguistics, but there are many people who work and publish in the field without such a doctorate. Of course I worked for years with texts of the same vintage as late ME and EModE in languages that I didn't understand as well as I do English.

Meh!  They're all hacks, I'm sure!

[Honorentheos]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought the point was that Joseph need  not be consciously using any types of phrases he had learnt through dictating and reading the BofM.  If familiarity with some phrase here or there led to its reuse by Joseph, why would that tell us anything about intentionality?  Particularly if it was hit and miss and not systematic.

It's hit or miss in the BoM and not systemic. EmodE is not the dominant voice here. If it were you wouldn't have to tease it out of the text or find comparative occurrances.

[Kenngo1969]

40 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I sometimes work in collaboration with Skousen and I have various degrees, one in linguistics from Stanford (also a law degree), another in Spanish, and another in Hispanic Languages and Literature (doctorate), specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis (Old Catalan, Old Spanish). I began intensive computational studies of language in 1991, pausing between 1999 and 2012, and then resuming in 2013.

¡Podemos platicar, entonces, en el idioma celestial!

[Bob Crockett]

34 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The best doctorate would be in early modern English linguistics, but there are many people who work and publish in the field without such a doctorate. Of course I worked for years with texts of the same vintage as late ME and EModE in languages that I didn't understand as well as I do English.

Let's see, by this logic my wife, who studied to be a vet in the German language in Bern CH, speaking Swiss German in her day-to-day life at the time, isn't trustworthy as a vet working in the United States in the English language. Oh wait, she's done just that in several different states and localities and has even taught anatomy in English.

Once again we are entertained with an argument for the exception.  

[Kenngo1969]

49 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I sometimes work in collaboration with Skousen and I have various degrees, one in linguistics from Stanford (also a law degree), another in Spanish, and another in Hispanic Languages and Literature (doctorate), specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis (Old Catalan, Old Spanish). I began intensive computational studies of language in 1991, pausing between 1999 and 2012, and then resuming in 2013.

¡Me equivoque!  ¡Mil perdones!

Edited August 4, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Bob Crockett]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The correspondence with (or presence of) Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon was an unexpected discovery.  Why would you expect someone who makes an unexpected discovery necessarily to have a degree in a discipline that's related to the discovery?  It seems to me that that would rather be like dismissing the preliminary finding of an emergency physician that one has a cardiac problem simply because said physician isn't a cardiologist (yes, it's true that potentially, my analogy is a life-and-death matter, while the matters under discussion here are not, but still ...).  It's too bad that Brigham Young University doesn't have anyone on the faculty with an advanced degree in Early Modern English Lit (or that there's no one elsewhere with a degree in that discipline) who can take a look at the findings of the Messrs. Carmack and Skousen.

Oh.

Wait ...

P.S. Should we dismiss your research into Mountain Meadows simply because you're not an historian?

My review of Bagley's work was a review, not a paper or a thesis. I stated on the first page of my article that I lacked credentials.

Any peer support for Carmack?  Once again, we are entertained with an argument for the exception.

[Bob Crockett]

51 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I sometimes work in collaboration with Skousen and I have various degrees, one in linguistics from Stanford (also a law degree), another in Spanish, and another in Hispanic Languages and Literature (doctorate), specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis (Old Catalan, Old Spanish). I began intensive computational studies of language in 1991, pausing between 1999 and 2012, and then resuming in 2013.

Once again, I must point out that you could easily be pulling all our legs.  You're anonymous and you are entitled to zero credibility.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Honorentheos]

We have evidence that Smith and Cowdery used these archaic forms outside of the BoM when attempting to sound biblical.

We have the vast, vast majority of evidence in multiple fields clearly contradicting the notion Nephites were a real people rather than a fictional group invented in the 19th c. for the BoM narrative. The overwhelming majority of people who are even vaguely aware of the existence of the BoM don't think twice about it having been authored in the 19th c. by Smith such that this idea the English version of it was actually penned before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock would be most commonly met with a polite, "Ok, sure" and an eye roll.

Attempts to ground the BoM in actual evidence require appropriating either Mesoamerican or North American native culture and reassigning it to an unattested Middle Eastern Hebrew migration.

The theological content of the BoM is saturated in 19th c. Christianity, including pre-Mormon theology such that the original BoM before the 1837 edits even contradicts distinctly Mormon theological views about the godhead, polygamy, and lacks any of the markets of modern Mormonism as well as any native American religions of the period it claims to represent.

There is practically no reason to assume the BoM is anything but a product of the 19th c.

Dropping into this thread, it's interesting that this discussion arguing for an unknown and clearly deceased participant in the BoM chain of authorship is treated like it's the only explanation available. Its a satirical comedy of errors at best.

[champatsch]

34 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't get Carmack's use of sources.   "Hath smote," for example, is contained in lots of 19th Century poetry.

In late 2013, I began to look at Book of Mormon grammar for the first time. One thing I noticed early on was the {-th} plural of the Book of Mormon, which I also found in the OED. (I didn't have good databases to turn to like I do now.) I also saw "bad grammar" matches in the OED involving language like "had (been) smote". "«Have» . . smote" language was more persistent in English than "«have» . . spake", although the latter did persist, becoming fairly rare, textually speaking. Because of persistence, "«have» . . smote" doesn't tell us anything definitive about the vintage of the Book of Mormon's language, but it's not out of place in an early modern text.

Yet even in the case of the persistent "had/hath/have smote", we find combinations of archaism in the Book of Mormon that are more strongly linked with much earlier usage, such as the following:

Quote

“after that the Lord had smote the river” (Exodus 7:25) [Tyndale 1530]

“after that I had smote off his head” (1 Nephi 4:19)

In these there is a combination of "after that S" and "had smote" language. Maybe you can find this in the 1800s. I haven't looked.
 

We can look at many related things, and there are nuances and complexities in each one. For example, the Book of Mormon has five instances of "«have» became", like these three:

Quote

2 Nephi 2:18         And because that he had fallen from heaven and had became miserable forever,  [with "because that S"]

Omni 1:17             And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had became exceeding numerous.

Alma 42:3             now we see that the man had became as God, knowing good and evil,

We can find this in the 17c but mainly in the 18c and beyond, often in noncolloquial 18c writings. What do we find in JS's early writings? He used past-tense become three times, as we can hear today in some American dialects (esp. past-tense come) and past-tense became four times. (Split usage, impossible to know if some instances were self-monitored.) And he used become as a past participle four times, but not became. It looks like he preferred become as a past participle, not became. At least from his early writings, we don't have evidence of the Book of Mormon's "«have» became", which fits noncolloquial earlier usage, and in this case isn't characteristically an early modern usage, though it does occur at the end of the period occasionally, and 2n0218 also has "because that S", which is characteristically early modern.

[Ryan Dahle]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

Once again we are entertained with an argument for the exception.  

Actually, I'm guessing that any perusal of an academic journal will demonstrate that many of their peer-reviewed publications involve topics that are slightly outside of the author's specific academic degrees, but are still within the main field of the author's expertise.

I've never looked into it, but in many ways, I suspect this is actually more of the rule than the exception. Most scholars develop new interests and skills that goes beyond the niches of their formal academic training, especially in areas like linguistics, where a formal knowledge of linguistic principles (such as syntax) can easily directed towards a variety of areas. I don't see any reason that Carmack's formal training doesn't make him exceptionally qualified to evaluate the Book of Mormon's linguistic patterns.