Book of Mormon Language


Recommended Posts

I felt so depressed this afternoon that I got the Book of Mormon out and tried reading it. However, the "eth"s and the "wherefore"s and the "yea"s grated so badly that I had to put it away again.

It got me thinking though - has the Book of Mormon ever been translated into contemporary English?

Also, what happens when it is translated into other languages? Do the translators mimic how those languages were spoken in 1611?

I'm not intending to be disrespectful - I'm genuinely curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the Book of Mormon ever been translated into contemporary English? No. Some have tried releasing "contemporary English" versions of the Book of Mormon, and some spellings/punctuation/grammar usage changes have been made, but today's Book of Mormon is essentially what came out of Joseph Smith's mouth.

Do foreign language translations try to mimic the idea of using Jacobean English by using an older form of the target language? Not that I can tell. I believe the Spanish Book of Mormon quotes Biblical passages using the Reina-Valera translation, which was originally from the same time period (1602) as the KJV. I suspect the translators might have used a more modern version of the R-V translation, which was done in like 1960. The Italian Book of Mormon that I used on my mission made no obvious attempt to use old-timey-sounding language. I think the newer Italian translation follows the newer French and Spanish translations pretty closely, and it appears to be a much better and more fluid translation than what I used on my mission.

I love the Book of Mormon. I love how it's written. I love the language it uses, though I'm not blind to the grammatical and other problems.

  • "Thou" is used throughout, but it seems that "ye" or "you" is often used when "thou" is more appropriate, and on a couple of occasions it seems that "thou" is used when "ye" or "you" is meant.
  • "Wherefore" means "why", e.g. when Shakespeare's version of Juliet says "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?", she means "Why are you Romeo?", and not "Where are you, Romeo?" Some Book of Mormon usage of "wherefore" seems to follow this, but most of the time it seems to mean something like "therefore".
  • The "-eth" suffixes are simply a Jacobean-era pronunciation of the common English third-person singular present active "-s" suffix. Thus "eats" is "eateth", "has" is "hath", "cries" is "crieth", etc. It was used in the London area and was simply a variant lisping pronunciation, though to our modern ears it sounds like an affectation.
  • Some hard-to-understand translations of Isaiah passages were retained in Joseph Smith's rendering. I don't know why, though I have some theories (which are worth approximately what you have paid for them). One I remember is: When speaking about the destruction among the wicked in Israel, Isaiah talks about "dragons in their pleasant palaces". I have come to understand that this means that jackals ("dragons") will prowl among the ruins of destroyed Israel's great public buildings ("pleasant palaces"). But that was hardly obvious to me, or I expect to almost any contemporary English-speaking reader.

I do hope you give the Book of Mormon another chance to help you with feelings of despair, despite any linguistic irritation. Since I started taking the Book of Mormon seriously at about age 19 or 20, it has changed my life for the better.

On that note, it's worth pointing out that the Book of Mormon is what classical scholars would call a tragedy. In the end, everyone dies, good is overthrown and the world descends into evil. I believe that one point the Book of Mormon makes is that we should not expect God's triumph to occur in our lifetimes. We may be witnesses to and recipients of great miracles, and may come even to have a personal witness or testimony of the power of God. But this wicked world will not repent. We are here to do God's will, develop and strengthen our faith, accomplish as much good as we can, and watch and learn. If we expect Zion to be established in our lifetimes, we will almost certainly be disappointed. Zion is real, much moreso than our shadow puppet show world, and Zion will be established. But those times are not our times. Ours is to navigate the waters we find ourselves in and teach our children to do likewise. God's rest, peace, and joy await us. For now, we deal with the conditions we experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Vort said:

On that note, it's worth pointing out that the Book of Mormon is what classical scholars would call a tragedy. In the end, everyone dies, good is overthrown and the world descends into evil. I believe that one point the Book of Mormon makes is that we should not expect God's triumph to occur in our lifetimes.

Quote

"I was not born to live a man's life, but to be the stuff of future memory. The fellowship of the Round Table was a brief beginning, a fair time that cannot be forgotten. And because it will not be forgotten that fair time may come again. Now once more I must ride with my knights to defend what was... and the dream of what could be."

Apparently that's from T.H.White's The Once and Future King - a book I've never got around to reading - though I'm sure they used it (or something very similar) in the movie Excalibur. Great movie. Nicol Williamson as Merlin and Helen Mirren as Morgana. They used the funeral music from Götterdämmerung in the final scene when he returns the sword to the Lady of the Lake. That was pretty much my first introduction to Wagner.

P.S. I was right: "I was not born to live a man's life, but to be the stuff of future memory." - Excalibur quote (clip.cafe)

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

Also, what happens when it is translated into other languages? Do the translators mimic how those languages were spoken in 1611?

I can speak to the Spanish and French versions.

It is easier for them to understand it than English speakers understand the KJV.  The primary difference is the use of pronouns and their verb conjugations.  Take that out, and we're not that far from the KJV.  And as a Brit, I'm confused why you consider it more difficult to understand than Shakespeare.

Spanish Examples:

One thing that puzzles speakers of both languages is that the "thee/thou" is considered the familiar form.  Yet that is what we use for God?

In Spanish they have the 

  • Singular familiar (thou/tu)
  • Singular formal (you/usted)
  • Plural familiar (ye/vosotros)
  • Plural formal (you/ustedes)

Yet, Biblical language always uses the "tu" and "vosotros".

Beyond that, we have to get rid of all contemporary jargon and slang.  So, the more educated and formal your contemporary speech, the less of a problem you'll have with the remainder of the work.

In fact, there was an instance where BoM language helped me understand in item in the Concrete Code that my colleagues couldn't make out.

The Code used "or" in an unusual way.  It is normally a conjunction.  But in this context it clearly meant "or I mean to say" or "in other words."  This was used a few times in the BoM.  And having read it as many times as I have, I immediately understood the meaning in the code.  But my colleagues did not.  Once I pointed that meaning out, they all understood that it made a lot more sense.  But they simply couldn't make heads or tails of it before.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And as a Brit, I'm confused why you consider it more difficult to understand than Shakespeare.

It's not that I don't understand it - it's just that the archaic style seems unnecessary. I'm sure if I was to go around speaking mock-1611 English, people would soon tell me to "cut it out and talk normal".

To be honest I don't always understand Shakespeare very well without the footnotes. How many Brits - even educated ones - could explain the meaning of "contumely" or "fardle" without access to a dictionary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jamie123 said:

It's not that I don't understand it - it's just that the archaic style seems unnecessary. I'm sure if I was to go around speaking mock-1611 English, people would soon tell me to "cut it out and talk normal".

I can't speak on behalf of the English, but if someone were to "appropriately" quote the Bard as the situation calls for it, I'd think that was perfectly fine.  But there is the issue of communication.  I once quoted Merchant of Venice to a friend of mine who was moderately educated.  He had no idea what I said.

But that happens if you speak out of someone's knowledge base.  Try this joke: 

Quote

Wanted dead and alive: Schrodinger's cat.

Just because the person I'm talking to doesn't get it, doesn't mean it isn't funny.

1 minute ago, Jamie123 said:

To be honest I don't always understand Shakespeare very well without the footnotes. How many Brits - even educated ones - could explain the meaning of "contumely" or "fardle" without access to a dictionary?

I'd believe that most "educated" Brits, and many "educated" Americans understand those words since they come from the most famous soliloquy of all time. 

But then again, it is like saying the one recognizes Beethoven's 5th because one knows four notes. So, there's that...

I'm just weird because I generally look up words when I don't understand them.  Then I tend to remember the definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd believe that most "educated" Brits, and many "educated" Americans understand those words since they come from the most famous soliloquy of all time. 

Ok those were bad examples - anyone who did Hamlet at school would probably know them. But what about "eftest" or "impeticos"?

Even if you don't get the exact meaning you can often get the sense of what it means. Sometimes I've been surprised: for ages I misunderstood "twin born with greatness yet subject to the breath of every fool...". I thought it meant being born BOTH for greatness AND for being badmouthed by fools. ("Twin born" you see!) Actually it means being born as the twin brother of "greatness". Subtle difference but it doesn't change the overall meaning.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Ok those were bad examples - anyone who did Hamlet at school would probably know them. But what about "eftest" or "impeticos"?

Even if you don't get the exact meaning you can usually get the sense of what it means. Sometimes I've been surprised: for ages I misunderstood "twin born with greatness yet subject to the breath of every fool...". I thought it meant being born both for greatness AND for being badmouthed by fools. Actually it means being born as the twin brother of "greatness". Subtle difference but it doesn't change the overall meaning.

OK, you got me on those.  I wouldn't have gotten those either. 

But my point still stands, the vast majority of the Book of Mormon is fairly easy to understand as long as you can get past the pronoun usage.  I'm sure you could find a few exceptions.  But the fact is that you can find such exceptions in most long books written to a post college audience.  So, what's the problem?

Do you really want it written so a 6th grader could understand it (esp. today's 6th graders)?  If I saw a book like that claiming to be written as formal scripture, I'd probably drop it like a bad habit.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

So, what's the problem?

No "problem" - just a matter of personal taste I suppose. I've no problem understanding the Book of Mormon - or the 1611 for that matter, though I dont use it much. The NIV is my main "go to" Bible followed by the NRSV and the Good News. I do occasionally use the King James if I want something I can be sure is very close to the original wording, but if it's NT I more often consult a Greek interlinear online.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

most famous soliloquy of all time. 

That is a great soliloquy though isn't it?

"Why do we put up with so much crap when we could easily put an end to it by topping ourselves? It must be that we're worried something even worse might be waiting for us on the other side. That's always the problem: we overthink things and end up doing nothing!"

Shakespeare's version was better I know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

That is a great soliloquy though isn't it?

"Why do we put up with so much crap when we could easily put an end to it by topping ourselves? It must be that we're worried something even worse might be waiting for us on the other side. That's always the problem: we overthink things and end up doing nothing!"

Shakespeare's version was better I know!

Yes, it was better.  But you pretty much nailed it.

To your earlier point, yes, it may be a personal preference.  But I cannot put aside the elegance of the Bard's choice of words.  Such meaning and weaving of sound, meaning, metaphor, and trickery of linguistics.

"Out.  Out, brief candle." (I'm sure this inspired Elton John).

"This proud o'er-hanging firmament (look, you, the sky)." (I wonder if it inspired "High Flight").

"And anything that may not misbecome The Mighty Sender, doth he prize you at." (I have a book of "Shakespeare's Inuslts").

"‘Our doubts are traitors, And make us lose the good we oft might win, By fearing to attempt."

And interesting words like "aroint".  No, we don't use that one anymore.

Is there any that can compare?  I have read Cyrano de Bergerac in the original French.  I've read the original Don Quixote in the original Spanish.  And I get the story and the emotional meanings of the passages.  Unfortunately, I can't grasp the beauty of the language since it isn't my primary language.  But with English, yes, I see the beauty of the archaic tongue.

Does anything compare to Shakespeare?

"By the Eternal! There is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land."  (Oh, wait, I believe it is.)

"When in the course of human events... we mutually to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

"... to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

Language was not invented to communicate, but to cause women to swoon.  Yet, I find myself swooning at the beauty of such language.  Me, a man of numbers.  I appreciate beauty in all things.  Numbers are not beautiful.  They simply are.  My wife is beauty incarnate.  The painted pictures of intricate language is also beautiful.

"The tulip field's sunrise after the rain."

Quote

I've seen things... seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium... I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments... they'll be gone.

Yes, beauty in words is something that tends to mesmerize me.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But I cannot put aside the elegance of the Bard's choice of words.  Such meaning and weaving of sound, meaning, metaphor, and trickery of linguistics.

Yes I agree with you about Shakespeare - I prefer the original over " translations" - though these paraphrases do have their place in teaching Shakespearian language. The difference with the Bible for me is I don't (usually) go to it for its literary beauty but for its meaning. The original languages of the Bible are as different from 1611 English as they are from the English we speak today. As for the Book of Mormon I don't hear 16th Century English so much as a 19th Century attempt to mimic it. Perhaps it's just because I've used modern Bible translations most of my life that it sticks out to me so much. I daresay for the people of Joseph Smith's time, it would have just flowed over them as "Bible language".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Yes I agree with you about Shakespeare - I prefer the original over " translations" - though these paraphrases do have their place in teaching Shakespearian language. The difference with the Bible for me is I don't (usually) go to it for its literary beauty but for its meaning. The original languages of the Bible are as different from 1611 English as they are from the English we speak today. As for the Book of Mormon I don't hear 16th Century English so much as a 19th Century attempt to mimic it. Perhaps it's just because I've used modern Bible translations most of my life that it sticks out to me so much. I daresay for the people of Joseph Smith's time, it would have just flowed over them as "Bible language".

OK, I forgot we were talking about the BoM.  I was still thinking about Shakespeare.

Back to the BoM.

"attempt to mimic it."  You say that like it's a bad thing.  It was actually quite common among the VERY Christian 19th century America.  Families were raised on the KJV. People would quote the KJV as part of every day speech.  They used the KJV to teach the children how to read.  People used the Bible to learn foreign languages. They'd have a Bible in English, one in the foreign language, a bilingual dictionary, and a grammar book.  That's how common it was to know and understand that language.

Yes, the common 19th century America had its own vernacular and speech patterns.  But in common practice, when someone wanted to make a point, the KJV was their go-to for authority on right and wrong.  And they avoided paraphrasing or "modernizing" it. They quoted.  And everyone understood because that was what they were raised with.  In fact, I don't think I've ever read any of the 19th century critics of the BoM complain that the archaic language was one of their complaints.  That seems to be entirely a modern invention to complain about it.

Even in the latter half of the 20th century when I grew up, as Christianity was fading, I was raised to pray like that.  I was raised reading the KJV.  So, I really don't think much of the linguistic differences.

This was the culture that Joseph Smith was raised in.  So, it is no wonder that when translating a work that was to go side-by-side with the KJV, that he used the same language as the KJV as far as he knew how.  This basically consisted of using "thou art" instead of "you are."  Pretty simple.  I just don't see the fuss.

One school of thought was that Joseph considered not only the KJV to be sacred, but the KJV language itself to be sacred.  So, when being scriptural, it only made sense for him to use that language as best he could.  I certainly wouldn't fault him for thinking the Bible is sacred.

I'd like your honest opinion as to which "sounds better".  Not more familiar, but better.  And I'll just modernize the thee and verb conjugation.

Quote

And now I speak concerning the prophecies of which my father has spoken.

**

And now I'm going to talk about the prophecies my father spoke about.

Yes, they say the same thing.  But the second is just plain boring.  If I wanted the reader to fall asleep, I'd write it in that manner.  And notice the use of the present progressive vs. the present indicative.  There is more power and more formality in the indicative than the progressive.  It speaks to the mind differently.

Not only that, we have the "ending a sentence with a preposition" issue.  That is how we speak today. That is common speech.  And according to my English teacher, it isn't "incorrect". But it is stylistically weaker to do so.  Is that how we want scriptures to sound like?

Quote

my heart groans because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.

***

I feel sad because of my sins; but I know who I trust.

Remember that scriptures are to convey an overall message that paints a picture and conveys emotion as well as forensic information.  "My heart goaneth" is quite emotional in such a way that we can relate.  When I hear "I feel sad", I tend to roll my eyes and someone who is just complaining.

Then there is the improper pronoun usage of "who".  It is the object of the sentence.  But people today talk like that.  Is that what you want?  What is different about "speaking like people talk today" vs "contemporary with proper grammar" vs "speaking with a different grammar that was once correct, like the day it was written?"

Aside: I always feel pricked when I hear people use "you and I" when they should say "you and me".  Similarly, people who always use "whom" regardless of object / subject.

Anyway.  Yes, there are reasons to use this language.  Is it sacred?  I don't know.  I tend to like it.  Is it wrong to change the language to a more contemporary vernacular?  I don't know about "wrong", but I think things will get lost as we do so.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2022 at 9:31 AM, Jamie123 said:

has the Book of Mormon ever been translated into contemporary English?

Something like this?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1544259158/_encoding=UTF8/ref=as_li_ss_tl?coliid=I3250QET6NOV2E&colid=N2P1EYGLVUWE&linkCode=sl1&tag=babblawid0e-20&linkId=bfddaa03e4cb35e02a2e1177a6dc86a0
 

 

or https://www.bible.com/bible/76/JAS.1.HPB

James 1:5-6

5If one a you guys donno wat fo do, aks God fo help you, fo give you da smarts you need! He no goin give you guys hard time. He goin help you guys. God give plenny to erybody, you know. 6But if you goin aks him fo do someting, you gotta trus him. No ack jalike you no can make up yoa mind. Da guy dat no stay shua, he jalike one wave inside da ocean dat da wind stay blow all ova da place.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/23/2022 at 4:24 PM, Carborendum said:

Aside: I always feel pricked when I hear people use "you and I" when they should say "you and me".  Similarly, people who always use "whom" regardless of object / subject.

It bugs me a bit as well but I'm always told it is now acceptable usage. A bit like splitting infinitives and saying "begs the question" when you mean "raises the question".

A few years ago someone gave me a very amusing book called "Doctor Whom". Doctor Whom is similar to Doctor Who, with the exception that he travels the universe correcting everyone's grammar, making a lot of enemies in the process!

Edited by Jamie123
Must correct my own grammar or I'll have Dr Whom on my case!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never had a problem with the Book of Mormon's writing style until I started recently reading nightly scriptures to my 5-year-old. One might ask, why would you read something so difficult to understand to a 5-year-old? Well...for the same reason my mother read it to us. So when we're older the language doesn't seem or feel hard or strange. Every time I read "And it came to pass..." now my child pipes up, "that means, 'It happened!'". And she's just naturally starting to understand what "thou/thee" means, etc. And I have to explain what I'm reading as I go a lot, and find that in some verses...well, a lot of verses...I have to explain every other word. The language is not common or plain, despite Nephi's proclamation that he's speaking plainly. (Obviously what he means by speaking plainly is a subjective idea. And he is, indeed, speaking plainly....relatively.)

Anyhow, my point is, I've never given much thought to the difficulty of understanding The Book of Mormon (other than the Isaiah parts, that I still struggle with), until I started reading it to a 5-year-old. 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I've never had a problem with the Book of Mormon's writing style until I started recently reading nightly scriptures to my 5-year-old. One might ask, why would you read something so difficult to understand to a 5-year-old? Well...for the same reason my mother read it to us. So when we're older the language doesn't seem or feel hard or strange. Every time I read "And it came to pass..." now my child pipes up, "that means, 'It happened!'". And she's just naturally starting to understand what "thou/thee" means, etc. And I have to explain what I'm reading as I go a lot, and find that in some verses...well, a lot of verses...I have to explain every other word. The language is not common or plain, despite Nephi's proclamation that he's speaking plainly. (Obviously what he means by speaking plainly is a subjective idea. And he is, indeed, speaking plainly....relatively.)

Anyhow, my point is, I've never given much thought to the difficulty of understanding The Book of Mormon (other than the Isaiah parts, that I still struggle with), until I started reading it to a 5-year-old. 😆

Each of our children learned to read in our (primarily) Book of Mormon scripture study. To begin with, they would recognize words by shape, such as "God" and "Lord" and "Jesus". By that time, they knew their alphabet (could recognize letters), so we started teaching them phonics, attaching sounds to letters. My oldest did not read well until shortly after his fifth birthday; his younger siblings, having older brothers to teach them, each began reading at four years old.

I went to one son's law school graduation six weeks or so back. He has taken what my wife and I have tried to do and has continued it, improving on it in many places. My older granddaughter was a week or two shy of her third birthday. During family scripture study, this still-two-year-old child read her verses mostly on her own. Not "read", but actually and in truth read, sounding out a couple of words she hadn't previously learned. Soon after we got home from that trip, my son sent me a short video of his now-barely-three-year-old girl reading Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham. He said he had read it to her one time the week before, but other than that, she didn't know the book. She sat in his lap and read the whole thing to him out loud. The video is adorable, as she's clearly working out what the words are. Makes me chuckle just thinking about it.

tl;dr:

  • Scripture reading is an outstanding way to introduce your child to reading and comprehension.
  • Children are a whole lot smarter than we often realize or give them credit for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2022 at 11:54 AM, Jamie123 said:

But what about "eftest" or "impeticos"?

To be fair, I believe Shakespeare made up "impeticos", and you're supposed to figure out its meaning based on context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2022 at 11:32 AM, Jamie123 said:

A bit like splitting infinitives and saying "begs the question" when you mean "raises the question".

Nothing wrong with a split infinitive. Never was. We split our infinitives just like we divide our verbs and end sentences with prepositions. English ain't Latin.

As for "begs the question", that particular misusage stretches to the breaking point my acceptance of Noam Chomsky's linguistic ideas. I'm a big proponent of linguistic descriptivism instead of prescriptivism. In linguistics, today's connotation is often tomorrow's denotation, and I think it's important to recognize and teach that principle to our children. But "begs the question" simply does not mean "raises the question", no matter how much people might misuse it. I am sympathetic to arguments that "beg the question" is a strange word choice that does not make obvious sense in 21st-century spoken English. But I don't care. (How's that for sympathy?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

Each of our children learned to read in our (primarily) Book of Mormon scripture study. To begin with, they would recognize words by shape, such as "God" and "Lord" and "Jesus". By that time, they knew their alphabet (could recognize letters), so we started teaching them phonics, attaching sounds to letters. My oldest did not read well until shortly after his fifth birthday; his younger siblings, having older brothers to teach them, each began reading at four years old.

I went to one son's law school graduation six weeks or so back. He has taken what my wife and I have tried to do and has continued it, improving on it in many places. My older granddaughter was a week or two shy of her third birthday. During family scripture study, this still-two-year-old child read her verses mostly on her own. Not "read", but actually and in truth read, sounding out a couple of words she hadn't previously learned. Soon after we got home from that trip, my son sent me a short video of his now-barely-three-year-old girl reading Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham. He said he had read it to her one time the week before, but other than that, she didn't know the book. She sat in his lap and read the whole thing to him out loud. The video is adorable, as she's clearly working out what the words are. Makes me chuckle just thinking about it.

tl;dr:

  • Scripture reading is an outstanding way to introduce your child to reading and comprehension.
  • Children are a whole lot smarter than we often realize or give them credit for.

Prior to reading this post I was feeling so good about how well my 5 and a half year old was sounding out and reading words like "cat", "bob" and "ant". Now I feel like she's way behind the curve. Thanks for that. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Prior to reading this post I was feeling so good about how well my 5 and a half year old was sounding out and reading words like "cat", "bob" and "ant". Now I feel like she's way behind the curve. Thanks for that. :D

Nononononono. It's not a contest. Your girl is doing fine. Five-and-a-half is a great age to start reading simple words. Other than a little idle bragging (which I get a pass for, because I'm a grandpa), my point was that scripture study can be an invaluable adjunct in learning to read. In addition, our children are often more ready to learn than we realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

But "begs the question" simply does not mean "raises the question",

Except, by literal word definition, it kind of does. (I will grant, there is an implication of the additional un-spoken "for" in the similarity of meaning. But unspoken implied added words are moderately common.) Which is why people misuse it that way so naturally. ;)

Some basic thesaurusing:

Begs (for) the question, invokes the question, pleads (for) the question, advocates (for) the question,  asks the question, sues (for) the question, adjures (for) the question...

vs.

Raises the question, incites the question, provokes the question, suggests the question, arouses the question, awakens the question....

I dunno...seems pretty much to mean the same thing, at a basic level...to me.

Granted, without the implied "for" then it doesn't mean the same thing, because instead of asking "for" the question one is asking "of" the question itself...but still... clearly when anyone uses "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" they mean the implied "for" as part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

Nononononono. It's not a contest. Your girl is doing fine. Five-and-a-half is a great age to start reading simple words. Other than a little idle bragging (which I get a pass for, because I'm a grandpa), my point was that scripture study can be an invaluable adjunct in learning to read. In addition, our children are often more ready to learn than we realize.

It's amazing to me how much of a contest raising my kids feels like sometimes. Yes, I know...that's terrible. But I can't help it.

Well, my kids may or may not be smarter than your grandkids...but they're cuter, dang it! So says I. And I'm not biased at all! It's objective!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's amazing to me how much of a contest raising my kids feels like sometimes. Yes, I know...that's terrible. But I can't help it.

Well, my kids may or may not be smarter than your grandkids...but they're cuter, dang it! So says I. And I'm not biased at all! It's objective!

Ten generations hence, my descendants will be your descendants. We will each be but one of a thousand ancestors of our generation. I dearly hope my precious great-great-etc-grandchildren receive from you, either genetically or by teachings that have perpetuated through the generations, traits and understandings that improve their lives and make them happier and holier. It truly is not a competition, but more like a joint venture where all parties profit by the success of the other parties.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share