Book of Mormon Language


Jamie123
 Share

Recommended Posts

One of the difficulties in a “modern English” BoM would be rendering it in a way that preserves the ways the BoM interacts with other sacred LDS writings.  Much of 2 Nephi acknowledges itself to be a rendition of various chapters of Isaiah—but there are subtle-yet-often-important differences between the Book of Mormon’s text and the KJV text.  Similarly, much of Moroni 7 draws on 1 Corinthians 13.  The Doctrine and Covenants, and innumerable LDS general conference addresses, in turn draw on and repeat Jacobean syntax from the Book of Mormon.  A simple-English Book of Mormon might be somewhat useful for an absolute novice; but sooner or later students and believers who want to get the most out of their study are going to have to get comfortable around the “original” English text.  (I shudder to think what kinds of quandaries our church’s translation department has to deal with.  I think that in many ways, we cannot help but deliver a very watered-down version of our religion to non-English speakers; because so many of those glorious little nuances and interconnections just don’t make it across linguistic/cultural barriers.)

Another issue is that when it comes to scripture, part of its very charm lies in some of the textual ambiguities and vagaries.  The layers of meaning, the potential for “likening” various passages to our individualized circumstance, often vanish if we start with a text that is specific, direct, and of deliberately narrow application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Ay wishe ay liv'd in ye olde thymes wen ay kud spelle wyrdes enee way ay whish'd.

You still can do that as long as you just don't give a darn.

Wait a minute.  Isn't that how French started?

Interesting facts about earlier forms of English (Old English, Middle English, and early modern English, e.g. Jacobean and Shakespearean). At least, these are things that I have learned that I assume are true. I'm not going to bother checking myself on each factoid, so if you know I'm wrong, by all means speak up.

  • R sounds were originally "rolled" or "trilled", as in Italian or Spanish. Many assume that English, a Germanic tongue, must have originally used the guttural R sound like modern German does, but that's apparently not the case. Evidence strongly indicates that Old English, Middle English, and most early dialects of modern English rolled their Rs.
  • Words spelled with the letter Y were pronounced with a sound similar or identical to the modern French sound of U; roll your lips as if to say "ooo" but instead try to say "eee". I think that pronunciation was lost from English in the Great Vowel Shift. (If you're eager to point the finger of blame for the spelling and pronunciation difficulties of English today, point at the Great Vowel Shift.)
  • The digraph "th" was developed amid the spread of printing presses. The letters used in Old English to denote the "theta" sound were thorn (þ) and eth (ð). Thorn pretty much took over by Middle English times, but neither letter was widely produced for printing presses, which were generally limited to the traditional Latin alphabet and a few Greek imports, such as X and Y. With no individual letter available in type to represent the theta sound, the digraph "th" quickly became accepted. (Another popular choice was to use the letter "y", as it bore a passing resemblance to thorn. Hence, "Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe", where "Ye" is pronounced simply "Thee". Though everyone pronounces it "Yee", as if the whole world were in on the private joke.) Eventually, thorn and eth pretty much died out of common usage altogether, becoming relics of past ages.
  • Speaking of "thee", it's a shame we don't use that any more. Not just a shame; a crime. I would start a one-man campaign to bring it back, but everyone would dismiss me as a Mennonite. Which they do already, as many of my religious persuasion have discovered.
  • The digraph "wh" was originally pronounced as an aspirated voiceless "ooo" sound, often written in pronunciation guides as /hw/. The so-called wine-whine merger erased the distinction. Not everyone uses the wine-whine merger, though; I do not, but I am the only one among my family of my wife and children who maintains the distinction. I don't recall that any of my siblings use the /hw/ sound, either. I'll have to ask them. I don't think my parents made the distinction. I'm left to suppose that I learned the distinction in elementary school and just adopted it as my own.
  • As I mentioned in a previous post, the -eth ending of many verbs is just a 16th-century London-area local pronunciation of the normal -s ending. Thus, eats->eateth, has->hath, dreams->dreameth, is->ith, etc. (Just checking to see if anyone was paying attention.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Vort said:
  • Speaking of "thee", it's a shame we don't use that any more. Not just a shame; a crime. I would start a one-man campaign to bring it back, but everyone would dismiss me as a Mennonite. Which they do already, as many of my religious persuasion have discovered.

I'm with you on that one.

17 minutes ago, Vort said:
  • The digraph "wh" was originally pronounced as an aspirated voiceless "ooo" sound, often written in pronunciation guides as /hw/. The so-called wine-whine merger erased the distinction. Not everyone uses the wine-whine merger, though; I do not, but I am the only one among my family of my wife and children who maintains the distinction. I don't recall that any of my siblings use the /hw/ sound, either. I'll have to ask them. I don't think my parents made the distinction. I'm left to suppose that I learned the distinction in elementary school and just adopted it as my own.

I had the opposite reaction.  Just a few of my teachers did teach the /hw/ sound, including Mrs. Walls (state capitals).  But I just looked at the few that did so and flat out said that no one pronounces it that way.

Since then I've heard it used on a few TV shows and movies.  But no one IRL used it in my experience.

Also, my favorite English teacher (Mr. Kopacki) never pronounced it that way.  I asked him about it once.  He said that some people do and some don't.  But language evolves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I just found something really amazing for me.  I think it would fit perfectly with this thread.

My missionary son (the one who got his Urkaine mission cancelled and is now in Layton, UT) found an old copy of the BoM in his apartment.  It had some weird markups of various types.  He said it was apparently a library copy, so it was probably marked up by someone who picked it up from a library.

One thing he conveyed to me was that 3 Ne 21:1-7 had a marking stating: "Poor English, but perfect Arabic."  He didn't know what that meant.  But he knew that I'd been studying Hebrew lately (and he knew that Hebrew and Arabic were from the same language family) and wondered if I had any idea.  I looked at Ch 21.  Immediately I realized what he was talking about.  

I had never really thought much about the word order in the Book of Mormon.  I was raised with it.  I was used to it.  And I have studied various languages enough to be able to decipher weird word order.  But when the topic was on my mind, I realized those verses are absolutely terrible. Technically, it is grammatically acceptable.  But stylistically, it's an aesthetic nightmare.  So, I began understanding what @Jamie123 was talking about.  He was right.  There are some phrases that are terrible.

So, taking a cue from my son, I looked up similar phrases in the Bible to compare with the Hebrew.  I was AMAZED at the results.  Virtually everything that seems weird (regarding word order) can be attributed to it being a translated work.

Biblical Example:

Quote

And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me;

  -- Lev 26:23 (KJV)

And if by these things, not (ye will) be reformed by me, (but will) walk unto me contrary.

  -- Same verse maintaining the word order from Hebrew (Masoretic Text).

I think the translators of the KJV really tried to keep the word order from the Hebrew as much as practical.  But there were some word orders that were so inscrutable that it simply wouldn't be decipherable in English.  So, they changed what they felt they had to in order to convey the message.  Not only that, but some verb conjugations had to be altered.

Example: We use "will" to denote future tense.  And we also use it to denote a commitment to do something.  But both inflections (in parenthesis above) are actually present imperfect in Hebrew.  I don't believe we have a present imperfect tense in English.  The closest comparison would be the present progressive.  And we seem to use that ad nauseum for everything.  Hebrew has no progressive state, so it isn't quite the same as the meaning in Hebrew.

I believe the translators did a good job.  The context and voice of the English seems to indicate that the future tense is meant to hint at a present imperfect meaning.

Now let's see what we read in 3 Ne 21.

Quote

And verily I say unto you, I give unto you a sign, that ye may know the time when these things shall be about to take place—that I shall gather in, from their long dispersion, my people, O house of Israel, and shall establish again among them my Zion;

  -- 3 Ne 21:1 (current wording)

And verily I tell you, I give you a sign, that ye may know when these things shall soon take place -- that I shall gather my people in from their long dispersion, O House of Israel, and shall establish my Zion among them again.

 -- Worded in standard English word order.

Notice that order of the direct object and indirect object placement. In English, we tend to want to drop a preposition where we can.  So, instead of "I want to give a sign to you", we use "I want to give you a sign."  Both are correct English.  But stylistically, one is more preferable and more common.

The verb "gather in" is worthy of note.  When we have a split verb like this, we tend to put an object phrase between the two words.  But in Hebrew, the word (asap) can be translated as either "gather" or "gather in".  Regardless of the translation in English, the verb is complete as one word.  So, the Hebrew word would have been translated as "gather in".  Then the verb would have been followed by the object. And that is exactly how it reads in the BoM text.

Also notice the use of the word "shall" instead of "will".  I had always wondered about that.  Why were both used throughout the Bible?  In today's English, they both indicate a future tense.  But it appears that (based on context) the "will" was used to indicate this "present imperfect" tense, while "shall" was used to indicate a future tense (in scriptures).  That really gives some insight into the meanings of some passages of scripture.  I haven't looked at the D&C, to see if it uses the same convention.

It was fascinating to discover that this uneducated farm boy would have provided the word order that clearly indicate that it was a translated work from a language that was significantly similar to Hebrew.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another example.  See the last phrase from the 3 Ne quote above:

Quote

and shall establish again among them my Zion;

Hebrew example:

Quote

...Beware thou that thou (bring not my son) thither again.

 -- Gen 24:6 (KJV)

...Beware (thou) that (not) (thou) bring again my son thither.

 -- Masoretic Text word order

In English, the "again" would be placed at the end, as is found in the KJV.  But in 3 Ne?  No.

The word "again" is an adverb.  As such, it needs to be placed next to the verb in Hebrew.  It is very awkward in English.  But in Hebrew, it makes perfect sense.

The "thither" is placed last in Hebrew.  But it is awkward in English.  So, we place it closer to the verb, but after the object.

I'm beginning to think this is a testimony to the validity of the BoM.  The objection I have is: Why there are so many passages that actually seem to follow more traditional English when it seems to violate Hebrew word order?

I came upon an answer:

After the loss of the 116 pages, Joseph was told to start translating from Mosiah onward.  Then after Moroni was translated, he was informed about the small plates, and was instructed to go back to work on the small plates (1 Ne to WoM).  When they were doing their editorial review for the printer's manuscript, they edited a lot to make it more readable in English.  But as they were getting near the end, the printer was catching up to them and they couldn't edit as much in the last sections of the translation.  It is possible that 3 Ne 21 was about the point where the printer caught up, and they couldn't do as much editing. Consider how much of the BoM is between Mosiah and 3 Ne 21.  

We also find that there are a lot more cultural markers in 1&2 Ne as well.

Quote

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did make out of wood a bow, and out of a straight stick, an arrow;

  -- 1 Ne 16:23

And it came to pass that I, Nephi did make a bow out of wood and an arrow out of a straight stick...

 -- More common English word order

Again, a Hebrew linguistic quirk.  Why did he separate out "wood" from a "straight stick"?  Bows are usually not made of a single piece of wood.  They are usually glued/laminated strips of wood.  So, they'd be multiple pieces of wood, vs a single stick that merely needed to be carved. 

In English, when we "make something out of wood" we tend to think of wood as a "mass".  But in Hebrew, it is spoken of as a plural (i.e. many "pieces of" wood).  They don't say "pieces of" they simply make "wood" plural instead of singular.

But the single stick used for the arrow?  That was the singular.  Compare to Exodous 37:1 and Ezekiel 37:16.  They both use the same word for "wood" or "stick" (ates).  But the former is plural; the latter, singular.

Amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/28/2022 at 11:07 AM, Carborendum said:

(Regarding "wh-" being pronounced /hw-/)

I had the opposite reaction.  Just a few of my teachers did teach the /hw/ sound, including Mrs. Walls (state capitals).  But I just looked at the few that did so and flat out said that no one pronounces it that way.

Since then I've heard it used on a few TV shows and movies.  But no one IRL used it in my experience.

Also, my favorite English teacher (Mr. Kopacki) never pronounced it that way.  I asked him about it once.  He said that some people do and some don't.  But language evolves.

Some years ago, our family doctor was named Dr. Wharton. I remember one time calling the clinic and asking, "Can I talk with Dr. Wharton's nurse, please?" The response was silence, followed by, "We don't have a doctor here by that name." I said, "Of course you do. Dr. Wharton has worked at that clinic since before we moved into the area fifteen years ago." She checked again and said, "Nope, can't find any doctor here by that name. I know all the doctors. We don't have a Dr. Horton." We went round and round on this until she finally figured out that I was saying "Wharton" (/'hwär tən/) and not Horton (/'hor tən/). When she realized it, she exclaimed, "Oh, you mean Dr. Worton!" My immediate thought was, "That's not how you say it." Ironically, it probably was exactly how Dr. Wharton herself said it. But I still find it funny that she couldn't understand my pronunciation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Vort said:

Some years ago, our family doctor was named Dr. Wharton. I remember one time calling the clinic and asking, "Can I talk with Dr. Wharton's nurse, please?" The response was silence, followed by, "We don't have a doctor here by that name." I said, "Of course you do. Dr. Wharton has worked at that clinic since before we moved into the area fifteen years ago." She checked again and said, "Nope, can't find any doctor here by that name. I know all the doctors. We don't have a Dr. Horton." We went round and round on this until she finally figured out that I was saying "Wharton" (/'hwär tən/) and not Horton (/'hor tən/). When she realized it, she exclaimed, "Oh, you mean Dr. Worton!" My immediate thought was, "That's not how you say it." Ironically, it probably was exactly how Dr. Wharton herself said it. But I still find it funny that she couldn't understand my pronunciation.

The question is getting to the point of: Is this a hill worth dying on?

I remember an episode of "All in the Family" where Archie was talking to a woman with a very strong Mexican accent.

Archie: Will you give that to me?
Woman: First say "pliss".
Archie:  Well, how about "please"?
Woman: Meh, close enough.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The question is getting to the point of: Is this a hill worth dying on?

Each of us was misunderstanding the other. The conversation was in good faith on both sides; the receptionist simply could not understand my pronunciation, and I did not realize that my pronunciation (or her failure to understand it) was causing the misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Vort said:

Some years ago, our family doctor was named Dr. Wharton. I remember one time calling the clinic and asking, "Can I talk with Dr. Wharton's nurse, please?" The response was silence, followed by, "We don't have a doctor here by that name." I said, "Of course you do. Dr. Wharton has worked at that clinic since before we moved into the area fifteen years ago." She checked again and said, "Nope, can't find any doctor here by that name. I know all the doctors. We don't have a Dr. Horton." We went round and round on this until she finally figured out that I was saying "Wharton" (/'hwär tən/) and not Horton (/'hor tən/). When she realized it, she exclaimed, "Oh, you mean Dr. Worton!" My immediate thought was, "That's not how you say it." Ironically, it probably was exactly how Dr. Wharton herself said it. But I still find it funny that she couldn't understand my pronunciation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/22/2022 at 5:31 PM, Jamie123 said:

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

Can't really say how they do in other countries, but in Denmark and Sweden the Book of Mormon translation follows the most modern national bible translations. Names change as well according to the Bible translations, for example, Jehova changed to Jahve in the Book of Mormon when it became the new Bible standard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

FTR, I texted my siblings a few weeks ago and asked them if they used the voiceless /hw/ sound for wh- words. Two sisters and a brother responded, and all said that they do make a slight distinction. I'll try to remember to listen for it when I talk with them, but I'm sure I'll forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 6:43 AM, Vort said:

FTR, I texted my siblings a few weeks ago and asked them if they used the voiceless /hw/ sound for wh- words. Two sisters and a brother responded, and all said that they do make a slight distinction. I'll try to remember to listen for it when I talk with them, but I'm sure I'll forget.

When I was a kid, "persons of authority" insisted there was a difference between the pronunciation of (for example) "what" and "Watt" - but they only sounded it when they were giving elocution lessons.

(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

When I was a kid, "persons of authority" insisted there was a difference between the pronunciation of (for example) "what" and "Watt" - but they only sounded it when they were giving elocution lessons.

(

Since I pointed this out to my children, they take special pains to make fun of my pronunication. Brats.

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