EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Lemmie »

bdouglas has posted a topic on MDD that I found interesting:

“Emode as Proof Joseph Smith Did Not Write Book of Mormon“

There are a couple of issues here that invite discussion. But before getting to the EModE, I wanted to address this:
... the fact [is] that there are no naturalistic Book of Mormon origin theories that make any sense. They require huge leaps of faith to accept——greater leaps of faith, in fact, than is required to believe the simple explanation Joseph Smith gave.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73 ... 1209985145
I know I have been out a long time, but this tactic is just stunning. It is absolutely illogical, paying no attention at all to the actual definitions of the words being used, and demonstrates an utter lack of awareness of real world processes. To be clear, if someone says “I have faith in my beliefs,” fine, but this is so far from that kind of a sentiment that it is not even recognizable as a religious declaration.

Has this become the latest “I know the church is true” phrasing? A strategy with no inherent meaning, other than to signal to others that you remain firmly in the fold? I can think of no other reason to announce something so devoid of rational thought.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Lemmie »

Moving on to the EModE theory, yesterday Carmack gave some further details:
Carmack wrote:
The Book of Mormon isn't a delimited early modern text from a few identifiable authors or from one particular dialect. It's a filtered, mostly and selectively early modern text, leaving pseudobiblical writings far behind in matching early modern archaism.

Four important pervasive syntactic features are the personal relative pronoun pattern (mostly late 16c / very early 17c in character), heavy finite clausal complementation with early modern modal usage (most like 16c and earlier usage), non(pseudo)biblical subjunctive shall usage (syntactic subjunctive, not morphological) (most similar to 16c usage), and the early modern periphrastic past (mostly 16c in character, when the usage peaked). The latter, however, needs internal syntactic support (of which there is plenty), since Chronicles of Eri (1822) has similar usage, though its periphrastic past lags the Book of Mormon's in quality.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73 ... 1209985196
And although this goes back to 2018, even in the face of Carmack’s evolving position I still think Brant Gardner’s response is the most comprehensive :
Brant Gardner wrote:
[Carmack:] “It falls to you to find dozens of modern examples of likely obsolete vocabulary usage found in the Book of Mormon to support your position, and it falls to you to find persistence of many archaic syntactic structures, usage patterns, and grammar. I don't see that you have begun to attempt it, or take the text seriously in this regard. But I don't think you're interested in confronting a lot of data. I think you're interested in looking at a small amount of data and theorizing. If you don't begin to dig into the issue substantively, in a major way, then I will be forced to view your position as ideological.“


Fortunately for me, I don't need to. You have found sufficient information to let us know that the underlying methodology used to date elements of the text is based on both an unprovable absence and, from the few that have been found for future forms, a clear issue with the comparative data.

At one point, I was pretty sure that we would find some of these archaisms in Joseph's early revelations but that later revelations would not show them. That would be consistent with Joseph learning a more statistically acceptable grammar. However, you helped with that and found exactly what I had expected. We have archaisms in Joseph's language and in a context where it had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. That should have firmly told us that the similarities had Joseph in common. That wasn't your conclusion. Your explanation was that they had the same pre-writer in common. That seems to me to be an ideological position.

I have never seen you defend the methodology you are using to suggest that Joseph couldn't have produced that language in the text. Here are the problems with that method:

1) It absolutely depends upon an absence of data, but cannot control whether the absence is meaningful or accidental.

2) It depends upon written texts, which are produced in different circumstances, different education levels, and different geographies from Joseph's local dialect. It also skips the possibility of editorial changes that might have obscured an original author's ungrammaticality (bless editors).

3) It does not produce consistent results. While there are archaisms in the text, there are clearly elements that post-date the archaisms and even include elements that, according to the methodology, were still in the future at the time of the text's dictation. In other words, the method contradicts its own conclusions.

4) The conclusion for the nature of the English language is that it is absolutely idiosyncratic and the dialect of the text was never spoken by any individual at any time.

It falls to the one using a methodology to be able to justify it.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70 ... 1209801438
Excellent analysis.

Back to EModE; I find it interesting that Carmack sort of grudgingly acknowledges The Book of Mormon matches Chronicles of Eri. That must be quite a match.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21281
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Kishkumen »

Brant Gardner is a good fellow, and, if you keep him off of Mesoamerica, he has a lot of worthwhile things to say. I don't make those comments about Mesoamerica to insult Brant. We all have our blindspots. I just find it interesting that issues analogous to those he raises against EModE apply to his own favorite Book of Mormon hypothesis. Truly fascinating.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Lemmie »

I accidentally double posted an OP, I hope you don’t mind kishkumen, I am quoting your comment over here also.
Kishkumen wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:41 am
I don't think it takes any leap of faith to suppose that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. It is the simplest explanation that is most consistent with what we see on the page and what is likely to have happened. What fits in no way is the story that ancient American Hebrews of the tribe of Manassah wrote the book in Reformed Egyptian. Show me any evidence outside of the text that squarely and unambiguously supports that claim and I will listen. We can skip to the part of there not being any such thing, because there is not.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Lemmie »

Carmack wrote:
The Book of Mormon isn't a delimited early modern text from a few identifiable authors or from one particular dialect. It's a filtered, mostly and selectively early modern text, leaving pseudobiblical writings far behind in matching early modern archaism.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73 ... 1209985196
This seems like a definite withdrawal from Carmack’s previous assertions.

He expands later in the thread:

Interesting to see the back and forth here. The Book of Mormon has a constellation of non(pseudo)biblical archaic features — sometimes patterns, sometimes not at the level of patterns but multiple instances, sometimes individual instances. There's of course the lexical material as well, which isn't as cut-and-dried as the syntax, but each potential instance is significant in its own way, to different degrees (semantics being quite complex and often hard to pin down).

<snip>

Hope this clarifies some things (though there's always room for more clarification and further details) — that in the Book of Mormon we encounter an array of nonpseudobiblical archaic features that we don't find in the King James Bible, or that are rare there and/or formed differently, like the more part usage, where the Bible employs the short form twice, and the Book of Mormon never does 24 times.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73 ... 1209985492
If the Book of Mormon was actually an EModE text, would one have to work so hard to tease out “sometimes patterns, sometimes not at the level of patterns but multiple instances, sometimes individual instances”?

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3565
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Dr Exiled »

I think it is time for the donors for the interpreter foundation or whomever is funding the EmodE project to politely pull the plug. Bad grammar didn't magically turn into Shakespeare. Nice try. EmodE or bad grammar is found throughout the bofm and early D&C revelations. Then it disappears as time goes on and as Joseph learns how to better speak and compose in english. This shows Joseph evolving and not evidence for some proto translation or God loving EmodE. Additionally, it embarrassingly proves Dr. Ritner's point that outside experts don't engage in Mormonism's claims such as EmodE because they are so ridiculous and silly that they are a waste of time.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
Symmachus
God
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Symmachus »

leaving pseudobiblical writings far behind in matching early modern archaism.
"Ding ding ding! What do have for him Johnny?"

Carmack is so close to grasping it. If he thinks it's an archaism, then it is by definition a text later than the period for which these linguistic features were contemporary. It's not Early Modern English.

Let's read his own words once more:
that in the Book of Mormon we encounter an array of nonpseudobiblical archaic features that we don't find in the King James Bible, or that are rare there and/or formed differently, like the more part usage, where the Bible employs the short form twice, and the Book of Mormon never does 24 time
None of the features he talks about are that common in the Book of Mormon either; they just display a higher frequency than the KJV. That to me suggests imitation of the KJV (overdoing archaisms). If you want to know whether the Book of Mormon is an Early Modern English text, compare it to some actual examples of Early Modern English. It's a vast literature. Anyone reading this can spend five minutes reading Holinshed's chronicles or even the Paston Letters, which are not consciously literary. Sticking with the KJV, which is at the tail end of the period in question, only shows that the Book of Mormon is somewhat different from it, but we all already know that. Carmack is simply showing us one way that difference manifests, then, upon findng these handful of features before the KJV, proclaims the Book of Mormon earlier than the KJV.

I provide a sample chosen at random from Holished (I modernized the spelling):
Raphael Holinshed in the 1570s wrote:Certes it was a custom begun in Egypt of old time, and generally in use almost in every place in process of time (when any of their famous worthy princes died) to ascribe some form or other of the stars unto his person, to the end his name might never wear out of memory. And this they called their translation in heaven, so that he which had any stars or form of stars dedicated unto him, was properly said to have a seat among the gods. A toy much like to the catalog of Romish saints, (although the one was written in the celestial or immaterial orbs, the other in sheeps skins, and very brickle paper) but yet so esteemed, that every prince would oft hazard and attempt the uttermost adventures, thereby to win such fame in his life, that after his death he might by merit have such place in heaven, among the shining stars. Howbeit, every of those that were called gods, could not obtain that benefit, for then should there not have been stars enough in heaven to have served all their turns, wherefore another place was in time imagined, where they reigned that were of a second calling, as the Semones who were gods by grace and favor of the people.
Or here (no time to modernize the spelling, but the spelling is irrelevant to the issue):
Constantine the sonne of this Constance, and Helen, was next king of Britons, by the right of his mother, who passing to Rome to receiue the empire thereof, deputed one Octauius king of Wales, and duke of the Gewisses (which some expound to be afterward called west Saxons) to haue the gouernment of this dominion. But abusing the kings innocent goodnesse, this Octauius defrauded this trust, and tooke vpon him the crowne. For which traitorie albeit he was once vanquished by Leonine Traheron, great vncle to Constantine: yet after the death of this Traheron, he preuailed againe, and vsurped ouer all Britaine. Constantine being now emperor sent Maximius his kinsman hither (in processe of time) to destroie the same Octauius, who in singular battell discomfited him. Wherevpon this Maximius, as well by the consent of great Constantine, as by the election of all the Britons, for that he was a Briton in bloud, was made king or rather vicegerent of Britaine. This Maximius made warre vpon the Scots and Scithians within Britaine, and ceassed not vntill he had slaine Eugenius their king, and expelled and driuen them out of the whole limits and bounds of Britaine. Finallie he inhabited all Scotland with Britons, no man, woman, nor child of the Scotish nation suffered to remaine within it, which (as their Hector Boetius saith) was for their rebellion; and rebellion properlie could it not be, except they had béene subiects. He suffered the Picts also to remaine his subiects, who made solemne othes to him, neuer after to erect anie peculiar king of their owne nation, but to remaine vnder the old empire of the onelie king of Britaine. I had once an epistle by Leland exemplified (as he saith) out of a verie ancient record which beareth title of Helena vnto hir sonne Constantine, and entreth after this manner
These are both Early Modern English. Compare them to the earliest Book of Mormon and let thy sense be thee a treweley worthie guide.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Lemmie »

From Nuevo, at MDD:

But from the articles I've read, it looks like Carmack checks Book of Mormon syntax against databases of tens of thousands of Early Modern English texts and a couple thousand eighteenth-century texts, and then uses a handful of hand-picked 19th-century texts as a control. The results are predictable.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73 ... 1209985515
Exactly.

User avatar
Symmachus
God
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Symmachus »

Lemmie wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:35 pm
From Nuevo, at MDD:

But from the articles I've read, it looks like Carmack checks Book of Mormon syntax against databases of tens of thousands of Early Modern English texts and a couple thousand eighteenth-century texts, and then uses a handful of hand-picked 19th-century texts as a control. The results are predictable.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73 ... 1209985515
Exactly.
Yes, and I would add that it is relatively few features that he focuses on, and some of these features do survive in some 19th century text (e.g. just a few weeks ago I came across "if...and" construction in a letter by Abraham Lincoln, and a version of that same construction survives in modern English, as in "touch me, and I'll sue"). And it is not accidental that these are stray syntactical features, because syntax is not a marker that differentiates one stage of English from another except at the very earliest period when the language was slightly more synthetic (i.e. with a richer morphology)—but only slightly. The syntax of Old English prose from the 10th century is not as different from modern English as the syntax of Latin is from any of its daughter languages in Romance. So these handful of obscure features, which were never very widespread anyway, are not the markers that Carmack thinks they are. And what about the lexicon or morphology? Where are the early modern uses of you/thou distinctions in the Book of Mormon? Where plural verbs ending in -en, where are words like "sithen" (=since)—in short, where are the some of the actual features that distinguish Early Modern English as such?

This is the most absurd form to date of the "how could Joseph have known?" argument—the only kind the apologists have ever been able to construct. If the Book of Mormon contained a numerical code that, when deciphered by the divines at the Interpreter, reproduced the owner's manual of a 1988 Honda Civic, it would be an improvement on this, because there is absolutely no way Joseph Smith could have known about the 1988 Honda Civic.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie

User avatar
Agosh
Nursery
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:58 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Agosh »

So what you're saying, Symmachus, is that Skousen has been wrong about the "if . . . and" construction in the Book of Mormon. It's a historical English usage. You don't happen to have the Lincoln example you ran across handy, do you?

If it's historical, then it's probably mentioned somewhere in the literature, because it does seem strange.

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3565
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Dr Exiled »

Symmachus says:

This is the most absurd form to date of the "how could Joseph have known?" argument—the only kind the apologists have ever been able to construct. If the Book of Mormon contained a numerical code that, when deciphered by the divines at the Interpreter, reproduced the owner's manual of a 1988 Honda Civic, it would be an improvement on this, because there is absolutely no way Joseph Smith could have known about the 1988 Honda Civic.
How could the apologists know what Joseph knew or didn't know to even make the argument in the first place? It's so ridiculous.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
Agosh
Nursery
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:58 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Agosh »

I looked at an older Skousen JBMS 3.1 article (1994), where he calls the "if...and" a non-English expression. Then I looked in Grammatical Variation, went through his proposed examples, throwing out some as unlikely, ending up with just over 40, with "if...and" the most common type, but finding that the extra and also occurs after when, because, as, and after. So has Skousen been wrong since the 1990s, that this is non-English? It seems like, since he's been a linguistics professor of one level or another since the early '70s, that he would've heard about treatments of this and mentioned it, unless he's hiding some evidence.

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1317
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Physics Guy »

Symmachus wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:26 pm
If the Book of Mormon contained a numerical code that, when deciphered by the divines at the Interpreter, reproduced the owner's manual of a 1988 Honda Civic, it would be an improvement on this, because there is absolutely no way Joseph Smith could have known about the 1988 Honda Civic.
Bah. Mere Hondamatopoeia.

User avatar
Symmachus
God
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Symmachus »

Agosh wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:05 am
I looked at an older Skousen JBMS 3.1 article (1994), where he calls the "if...and" a non-English expression. Then I looked in Grammatical Variation, went through his proposed examples, throwing out some as unlikely, ending up with just over 40, with "if...and" the most common type, but finding that the extra and also occurs after when, because, as, and after. So has Skousen been wrong since the 1990s, that this is non-English? It seems like, since he's been a linguistics professor of one level or another since the early '70s, that he would've heard about treatments of this and mentioned it, unless he's hiding some evidence.
I have no idea what Skousen may or may not be hiding, my dear Agosh. However, the difference between him and me, as regards evidence, is that I have no motive to hide anything, whereas he does. Data don't misrepresent themselves, but people who interpret them do, even professors of linguistics. It's the dishonest ones who refuse correction.

I myself am very happy to be corrected, and in this case must correct myself for being overhasty, though perhaps you will forgive the context: I noticed what seemed to be an example of this phenomenon in the first volume, page 188, of Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative, and I this was a commander on the front, not Lincoln:
If you can reinforce strongly
and quickly we have a glorious chance to overwhelm the enemy
Now, this was some light reading I did a month ago, and quickly, and it took no small time to find this for you. If you go to the page, you will see that that there is a line break after "strongly," and also there is no punctuation, so it feels like a clausal pause when you're reading. I remembered thinking about this as an example of "if-and" syntax for a brief moment but left at that, because obviously this wasn't a research project.

But now that I've taken the time find this for you and offered my correction in good faith, I wonder if you might explain something to me. From what I gather, this is supposed to be an example of a Hebraism (questionable, for technical reasons that I am happy to explain). Yet at the same time we are to believe the Book of Mormon is early modern English—why this Hebraism then? Was Early Modern English influenced by Hebrew syntax?

Also, could you provide an example from Skousen of "if-then" constructions that are short (i.e. two simple clauses)? From what I recall, most of the evidence involves long unpunctuated chunks, and so given that this text was dictated, it is hardly unusual to see broken syntax or any number of features that appear syntacticall "ungrammatical." Most spoken language can appear syntactically ungrammatical if measured by a written standard. But all the same, any competent linguist would treat an admittedly transcribed text like the Book of Mormon somewhat differently from a written text that has been edited. As I understand it, even Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery edited out the "if-ands," which suggests that they considered them scribal errors, at best, or attempted to make the spoken Book of Mormon more writerly so that it could be more easily read—or in other words, they imposed the same assumptions about language that I have mentioned. Skousen simply take the "if-ands" of the manuscript at face-value, doesn't he? That is where Skousen makes a serious error—or deception, if you prefer—because he first reduces the published Book of Mormon to a form most closely approximating what is actually an oral text, but then he handles that transcription as if it were a polished piece of writing, from which he can find "non-English" examples because they deviate from the rules of standard, written English of the time. That is actually absurd, linguistically, because all of the people invovled with the text were native English speakers, so whatever text of the Book of Mormon they produced is by definition English. People speak ungrammatically (according to the written standard of syntax) all of the time; try transcribing a conversation word for word some time, without punctuation, and you will see how "un-English" it will appear as compared to written English.

On this question of hidden evidence, the fact you have to grasp is that we have almost no record of spoken English from the 19th century. There is nothing for Skousen to be unaware of "in the literature" (as you phrase it), because you can't do scholarship with evidence that doesn't exist. Almost all of our evidence is mediated through writing—the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon is a rule-proving exception—which means the leveling process of education and editing has covered over any idiosyncrasies. Like a lot of people today, people at the time thought that any differences between the written and the spoken were a question of "bad grammar," which is another way of saying that, for them, the only real English was educated English defined by a written standard. There are certainly discussions from the time about dialects and so on, but these invariably focus on lexical items: words different from one region to another, for example, or pronunciation, but certainly not syntax beyond the most obvious cases. So Skousen actually has no way of knowing whether any of these features he finds significant had a wider currency or not. It's pure speculative assumption to say they didn't. It's not unreasonable in general, but do you have any examples of a transcribed speech from western New York woods of the 1820s you'd like to share? That would be the only valid comparandum.

You only start to get more rigorous analysis of dialectical and areal features in the twentieth century, and discussions of syntax really only since the end of World War Two. In short, Skousen ultimately makes claims that cannot be disproven on any terms. If feature X, different from the written standard, shows up in the transcription of the orally produced Book of Mormon, it is evidence that feature X was part of Joseph Smith's speech pattern (idiolect). It is not evidence that feature X has mysteriously been transported from the 15th and 16th century or from the Hebrew speakers living in Costa Rica. That is Skousen/Carmack's non sequitur.

Also, the fact that you find the "ands" attached to conjunctions like "because" and "as" and "after" suggests to me that this is not a Hebraism at all. I understand why "if-and" could be interpreted that way because it reflects a syntactical pattern of Biblical Hebrew, but there is now way that "because and" or "as and" or "after and" reflect that. Any person who actual reads the Biblical Hebrew with facility will understand why that is so; when Skousen-Carmack make big claims like this by doing corpora searches, it suggest to me that they have no more than a skeleton grasp of the grammar of Hebrew.

Lastly, I would suggest to anyone who wants to test this claim about Early Modern English to actually do some reading in Early Modern English. People like Carmack and Skousen who do these searches in large corpora hardly seem to have any acquaintance with the languages they are working in. And yes I include Carmack, whose specialty is Spanish, and Skousen, who has not published on early Modern English beyond his Book of Mormon work (his specialty is an understanding of language that he invented and no one else has accepted as far as I know; he is thus an expert in his own views, but he is not an expert in the historical linguistics of English, according his publication record). It's a bit like the topology professors who get lost on a hike; one scans the map for a while and then says to other: "Aha! I know where we are!" And the other asks: "Where are we?" To which he says: "See that mountain over there? That's where we are." Skousen and Carmack strike me as the sort of scholars who rely too much on devices and too little on actually knowing something.

They can quote 80 instances of early modern English X or Y feature out of 100,000 + words and then run the percentages against their occurrence in the KJV or some 19th century text, but that meager data doesn't speak for itself at all, particularly when most of them were edited out in publication process by the principals involved. This is going about it all backwards.

Go read early modern English texts for two weeks and nothing else and then come back and tell me that the Book of Mormon reads like Early Modern English (but not the KJV). If it does read that way to you, then you start to outline what those features are that connect it to the texts you read. Perhaps you will come up with the same list as Skousen/Carmack. But what Skousen/Carmack do is start with the list of features derived from applying a glorified Google search to a version of the text that even the people who produced it didn't consider reflective of what they wrote. I guess he knows better than them what the text of the Book of Mormon really is.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22387
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by moksha »

Physics Guy wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:36 pm
Bah. Mere Hondamatopoeia.
Without Interpreter approval it is pseudhondaepigrapha.



Wish Symmachus could receive a hoax finders fee under the Whistleblowers Reporting Act. Save the Ghost Committee donors some money, even if it cuts off the flow of florins and flagons in 16th Century England.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9926
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Gadianton »

Here is a FAIR rundown of Skousen's Hebraism. I think, Symmachus, that a long time ago anything that wasn't quite right was attributed to Hebrew, not realizing that one day they would discover EmodE, and that in that future day, everything not quite right would be EmodE instead.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Ques ... slation%3F

Here is the printers manuscript:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ary-1830/1

You can click "view entire manuscript" and then copy/paste a text file (notepad++ to view best if you use windows)

It's and-o-rama for the Printer's Manuscript, or rather &-o-rama. Every thought cluster is connected with an '&', and '&' ties all sentences together rather than having periods. and so the desperation to find something non-English in a manuscript with a '&' every 27.5 characters is off the charts. Is it Hebrew or EmodE to not have any periods and connect everything with 'and'?

According to the FAIR article, Skousen found 14 'if...and' statements.

What is the reason in Hebrew to use 'if...and' vs. 'if...then'?

I believe there are 28 examples of normal 'if...then' statements. Here are 17 if...then statements (less than 30 words in length) from Printer's Manuscript:

if ye were righteous & were willing to hearken to the truth & give heed unto to it that ye might walk uprightly before God then ye would
if the Lamb of of God he being holy should have need to be Baptised by water to fulfil all righteousness O then how much
if God being able to speak & the world was & to speak & man was <​created​> O then why not a
if it so be that these last grafts shall grow & bring forth the natural fruit then shall ye
if our hearts have been hardened yea if we have hardened our hearts against the word insomuch that it hath not been found in us then will our
if ye will repent and harden not your hearts then will I ha
if my days could have been in my <​them​> days then would my
if this thing which he hath said concerning the chief Judge be true that he be dead then will we b
if his son ask bread will he give him a stone or if he ask a fish will he give him a serpant if ye then being evi
if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessings which they shall receive after thâ—Št they have scattered my People then shall ye
if it should so be that they shall believe these things then shall the
if it so be that they will not believe these things then shall the
if a Church be Called in Meses name then it be mos
if it be called in the name of a man then it be the
if it so be that ye are righteous then are ye bl
if there <​was​> miracles wrought then why has G
if ye have not faith in him then ye are no

These are pretty clear conditionals. Skousen's list isn't so clear to me. Here is some of the surrounding text of one example he gave:

if he say saieth unto the earth move & it is moved yea
if he saieth unto1245 the waters of the great deep be thou dried up & it is done behold
if he saieth unto this Mountain be thou raised up & come over & fall upon that City that it be buried up & behold it is done
if a man hideth up a treasure in the earth & the Lord shall say let it be acursed because of the iniquity of him that hath had it up behold it shall be acursed

it seems like he wants to say if...behold, not if...and
if...behold is really common. Here are a few examples:

if our brethren seek to destroy us behold we will h
if our brethren destroy us behold we shall
if thou shalt deny again behold God shall
if so blessed are ye behold thy broth
if the seed were <​was​> good & behold as the tr
if a man murdereth behold will our
if ye transgress the commandments of God behold these thi
if ye will not repent behold this grea
if ye will in this thing seek to destroy me behold I say unt
if ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life behold mine arm
if he endureth to the end behold him will
if it so be that the water come in upon thee behold ye shall
if ye will but have <​have​> faith behold it was by
if I go not out soon against the Lamanites behold the pride

I think there are around 40 if...behold 's
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9926
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Gadianton »

some if...behold from KJV:

if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will s
if thou wilt not let my people go, behold, I will s
if thou refuse to let my people go, behold, to morro
if the priest see that, behold, the scab
if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be
if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be
if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plag
if the priest look, and, behold, the plag
if ye will not do so, behold, ye have
if one look unto the land, behold darkness
if I enter into the city, then behold them that
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1317
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Physics Guy »

“Move and I’ll shoot” meaning “if you move then I will shoot” is part of current English, unusual but in some contexts the most natural construction. So I’m sure it was a known construction to Smith.

So what if this form turns up in the Book of Mormon at some higher rate than would have been normal for Smith? Whatever unconscious constraints may rule our language, there is no way that anyone’s brain is able to frame a structure once but is thereafter physically unable to repeat the performance until the next chapter. Smith could certainly do it once and there was nothing to stop him overusing the construction for deliberate effect.

User avatar
Agosh
Nursery
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:58 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Agosh »

Thank you for that enlightening excursus, most esteemed Symmachus. I hesitate to ask for any further explanations as I do not wish to take up any more of your valuable time. You surely have more pressing and important pursuits to attend to.

Yet you asked for some examples, and simple examples at that, but it looks like Skousen himself stipulates that the Book of Mormon's extra and is never simple, unlike what it can be in Hebrew. There's always a complicating phrase or clause between the initial subordinate clause and the main clause, as in this well-known case:
Moroni 10:4 (extra and removed for the 1837 edition)
and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart,
with real intent, having faith in Christ, 
and he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Or this one:
Helaman 13:28 (extra and removed for the 1837 edition)
and because he speaketh flattering words unto you
and he saith that all is well,
and then ye will not find no fault with him.
As for the "if...and" example from Shelby Foote's book that you so kindly offered, I was hoping it was a likely example, but I find that the reading is probably as follows:
If you can reinforce strongly and quickly[, then] we have a glorious chance to overwhelm the enemy.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22387
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by moksha »

Is it so hard to believe that God was such a big fan of William Shakespeare that he made Early Modern English words appear on the Seer Stone screen? For if thou hast faith thy wise believer, the answer shall be delivered unto you ere the break of the morrow.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1317
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: EmodE and asserting “proof” of Book of Mormon

Post by Physics Guy »

This kind of construction might just be a mistake in dictation, no? Even today I think there are two alternative ways to express conditions and conclusions:

If you ask, then he will manifest.
Ask, and he will manifest.

Because he speaks, therefore you will not find.
He speaks, and you will not find.

So a person dictating might simply forget which choice they had made at the beginning of a long sentence, and inadvertently complete the sentence in the second form, having started it in the first.

A test for this possibility might be to see how often the if ... and construction happened with a long ... in between the if and the and, compared to how often it happened with shorter intervals between. The EModE grammar hypothesis would not seem to me to predict any difference in these two frequencies, but the forgetful mixing of constructions would be more common with the longer intervening clauses than with shorter ones.

It might also be worth seeing how often one gets the opposite kind of mixing, "Ask ... then he will manifest". Forgetfulness might not necessarily be symmetrical for the two kinds of mixing but one would expect some amount of mixing of both kinds, I think,

Post Reply