First off, you cannot point to anyone who has been able to do that creative task of forgery. Second, no one in Joseph's day even realized the meaning of such an assertion. The sources for creating such a forgery did not even exist, much less the notion that there was such a thing as EModEnglish. You cannot forge a thing which you are fully ignorant of.
Most important, Carmack has provided a greatly detailed series of academic studies (in Interpreter) which show in just what Early Modern English consists of in the Book of Mormon. You seem not to have read any of that, thus being blissfully unaware of the utter depth of complexity involved. There is no sense in which a familiarity with both Shakespeare and the KJV could be used to create the Book of Mormon. Neither Shakespeare nor the KJV include enough Early Modern English to have made that even remotely possible.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/710 ... ys/?page=2
Apologists have used this Nibley tactic for decades. They did it with "Egyptianisms." Then when those didn't pan out very convincing, all the sudden it was Hebraisms! Then Chiasmus! Then Old World Archaeology and lingjuistic sophistication. Then Mesoamerica and cultural perfetion fitting like a glove with 40 parallels! And now, finally, late in coming, but limping along comes Early Modern English. And the exact same justification and assumptions and logic as Smith uses above was used for each and every single defense of the Book of Mormon ever "discovered."
And none of them have held convincing water or convinced the world this record really is a second witness to Christ.