Gadianton wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:58 pm
Great information, Lem.
Originally, Skousen had this "AM" model for predicting some kinds of language changes. Early Modern English was a logical part of that research, as you have to show the language rule working throughout different periods.
Set that aside.
In general, yes, but I don't think you can fully set aside the possibility that his use of the Helsinki corpus in his 2005 paper had an influence on his critical text research process. Prior to the 2005 paper he tested his a limited part of his theory on some French words, then another area, then the last paper he wrote (as far as I know) on the AM model used the Early modern English corpus to test the model overall. That was the same year he decided that the Book of Mormon had Early Modern English in it. It is not evidence per se but it is an associated element, in my opinion, that fleshes out the story.
Now over here, on the other side of the desk, you have the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, which is piecing together the earliest Book of Mormon text.
While many assume Joseph Smith was putting ancient things in his own words and using bad grammar, the best (only?) account of his procedure, reading words off of a stone, doesn't fit. For the faithful scholar, this raises an interesting challenge. How do you account for bad grammar? Just say God uses bad grammar? The words on the stone were first filtered through Joseph Smith's mind?
Who knows if Skousen was actively looking to solve for this, but at minimum, it had to be a persistent concern.
I wasn't around for this, so I appreciate any additional information, but it is my understanding that prior to this, Skousen's writings proposed that the Book of Mormon language was Hebraic, not 19th century. Then, this Early Modern English data started showing up in his writings, just when his professional unrelated papers started testing on Early Modern English. I'll see if my notes have it, but just as an example, Skousen published this paper in 1994
The Original Language of the Book of Mormon: Upstate New York Dialect, King James English, or Hebrew?
Abstract
The original text of the Book of Mormon contains complex, Hebrew-like constructions that have been subsequently removed from the text because of their non-English character.
https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/jbms/vol3/iss1/3/
I found this interesting from Skousen's conclusion:
What is important here is to realize that the original text of the Book of Mormon apparently contains expressions that are not characteristic of English at any place or time, in particular neither Joseph Smith's upstate New York dialect nor the King James Bible.
So at that point, at least, he was not of the opinion that English of any time period explained the anomalies.
Gadianton wrote:
And now on the other side of the desk, out of the different language periods he was looking at for AM, suddenly he notices in Early Modern English, a couple of these problem words that Joseph Smith used, and Early Modern English becomes his moldy orange. Whatever else it meant (Ghost committee), most importantly, it meant that the original Book of Mormon text might have been something Joseph Smith would have read, with his head in a hat, rather than made up.
Does that sound about right, up to this point?
Yes, although I am not totally sure what a "moldy orange" is(!!!), but from your context, I think so.
Keep in mind that, as far as I know, he did NOT test his AM on very many language periods, but rather did a couple of isolated and specific word group tests, then his final AM model testing was done only on Early Modern English and modern English, as defined by the British Helsinki corpus.
This however is a good question that needs more support to definitively answer than just my quick and dirty overview. Also, as far as I know, no other language time periods have been used as a control or alternate to the Early Modern English theory other than Smith's actual time period, with the exception of "future English", i.e. Now, which I recall Carmack briefly commenting on.