wordprint studies

[_asbestosman]

We've all heard about the wordprint studies on the Book of Mormon. I myself think it might be fun if we could get some of the geeks on this board to work on something like that together. However, I would like to study from some potentially different angles:

What difference in wordprint is detected in the earlier and later editions of the Book of Mormon? How about the D&C / Book of Commandments?

What differences are found in foreign language editions?

Would taking a Fourrier transform of the data shed any light on wordprints (as is done with voice-prints)? How about estimating a probability density function by dividing the texts into smaller pieces and then comparing windows with the estimated PDFs (what if they aren't normal curves and what if that was an assumption in prior sutdies).

Another question I have is to whether contextual words would be useful. While I grant that non-contextual words may be best when an author is trying to immitate the style of someone, I would think that an author who is trying to have all characters come across as approximately equally intelligent and of similar upbringing would have them all share a closer vocabulary and phraseology. I should like to compare phraseology differences in the Old Testament with those of the Book of Mormon. Granted this may not demonstrate anything as the Book of Mormon authors may have had to learn from how the previous ones wrote and therefore been more homogenous than the Old Testament or New Testament.

Finally, one thing about the translation process I can't quite reconcile with wordprints is the undeniable inconsistancy in Jacobean English / present-day English. Sometimes verbs are conjugated with -eth, -est, etc., and sometimes they are not. Eg. you can find both "he has" and "he hath" in the Book of Mormon (and the D&C). If that isn't a sure sign of the translater's hand, I don't know what is. Of course I can also see how that might still allow for the translatee's wordprint to come through. It just makes me question how much the translator influenced the translation.

Ultimately perhaps these questions are worthless because neither a positive nor negative answer would seem to have much of an impact about whether the Book of Mormon is true.

[_cksalmon]

We've all heard about the wordprint studies on the Book of Mormon. I myself think it might be fun if
Finally, one thing about the translation process I can't quite reconcile with wordprints is the undeniable inconsistancy in Jacobean English / present-day English. Sometimes verbs are conjugated with -eth, -est, etc., and sometimes they are not. Eg. you can find both "he has" and "he hath" in the Book of Mormon (and the D&C).

The inconsistency you've highlighted here can be better explained by simple inconsistency on the part of the author(s). I don't know why translator error of an ancient document seems, far and away, the best explanation of the material to you. The writer(s) was inconsistent. Mistakes in grammatical consistency are just that. To be most generous, this observation has nothing to do with the question of whether Book of Mormon is actually an ancient document. These are rather basic mistakes in consistency. How would they militate for antiquity? They're irrelevant to that question.

Best.

CKS

[_asbestosman]

These are rather basic mistakes in consistency. How would they militate for antiquity? They're irrelevant to that question.

Yes, I agree with that. To me it brings up more questions about the translation process rather than the antiquity of the source. That's all I was trying to get at there.

[_Jersey Girl]

ab man,

Don't bother. I know for a fact that something is coming out very soon. Please stay tuned.

[Jersey Girl]

Wordprint Studies or not, I wish they would use an all modern English edition. That way they could quit saying Jacobean-like prayers.

[_CaliforniaKid]

ab man,

Don't bother. I know for a fact that something is coming out very soon. Please stay tuned.

In what venue, and by whom?

[_asbestosman]

ab man,

Don't bother. I know for a fact that something is coming out very soon. Please stay tuned.

Yeah, I caught on to that from Uncle Dale as well. Apparently someone will publish something in the next year and according to their studies it points to single authorship for the Book of Mormon.

The reason I think it might worth bothering about is to try my own spin. I'd like to see an analysis using pdf estimation instead of merely assuming a gaussian or Chi-square distrubution. I'd also like to see other fun things like what a Forrier transform would do to the data--perhaps a spectrogram or even a wavelet transform. Another possibility would be estimating the fractal dimension of the data. There are all sorts of strange things one can do with data points. I might like playing with a few myself, especially if I got support from some of the other computer geeks who hang around here.

[_Trevor]

The inconsistency you've highlighted here can be better explained by simple inconsistency on the part of the author(s). I don't know why translator error of an ancient document seems, far and away, the best explanation of the material to you. The writer(s) was inconsistent. Mistakes in grammatical consistency are just that. To be most generous, this observation has nothing to do with the question of whether Book of Mormon is actually an ancient document. These are rather basic mistakes in consistency. How would they militate for antiquity? They're irrelevant to that question.

And, the number of authors has nothing to do with when they wrote, or the language they wrote in.

[_Trevor]

Yeah, I caught on to that from Uncle Dale as well. Apparently someone will publish something in the next year and according to their studies it points to single authorship for the Book of Mormon.

And that will mean exactly nothing by the time Mormon apologists get their say on it. Not that it will be scientifically flawed.

[_asbestosman]

Again, I don't think wordprints have any direct bearing on the antiquity or authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Rather I think it has implications for the translation process which may then have implications as to how we should understand difficulties in the Book of Mormon (wheat, barley, horses, etc).