Page 3 of 6
Re: "The Book of Mormon surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism"
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:57 pm
by Dr Exiled
I guess I have to hand it to Mr. Carmack for doggedly pursuing his theory, no matter how fantastical it sounds. He sees Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon clouds and by damned Joseph Smith couldn't have known to put it there. No way could Joseph Smith have been trying to sound biblical. That is out of the question for our language miner. Leadership may come and go, but, Early Modern English lives on! At least he keeps himself busy, punching out variations on his dubious claims, and at a steady pace. It also provides needed filler so the interpreter chief can continue to keep his streak of weekly "scholarship" intact. So there's that too.
Re: "The Book of Mormon surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism"
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:22 pm
by drumdude
¥akaSteelhead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:33 pm
they misspelled "anachronism".
Re: "The Book of Mormon surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism"
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:26 am
by Alphus and Omegus
Dr Exiled wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:57 pm
I guess I have to hand it to Mr. Carmack for doggedly pursuing his theory, no matter how fantastical it sounds. He sees Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon clouds and by damned Joseph Smith couldn't have known to put it there. No way could Joseph Smith have been trying to sound biblical. That is out of the question for our language miner. Leadership may come and go, but, Early Modern English lives on! At least he keeps himself busy, punching out variations on his dubious claims, and at a steady pace. It also provides needed filler so the interpreter chief can continue to keep his streak of weekly "scholarship" intact. So there's that too.
Carmack also seems to miss the extensive linguistic work that's already been done demonstrating how archaic usage patterns are much more likely to be common in rural areas.
It would be the best troll in the world if someone could somehow trick him into "analyzing" text from "The Two Towers" with different names so that he could "prove" it was a true record.
Re: "The Book of Mormon surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism"
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:09 am
by Rivendale
consiglieri wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 7:56 pm
Waiting patiently for the joke to land …
Are you calling John Frum a joke?
Re: "The Book of Mormon surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism"
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:10 am
by Dr Exiled
Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:26 am
Dr Exiled wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:57 pm
I guess I have to hand it to Mr. Carmack for doggedly pursuing his theory, no matter how fantastical it sounds. He sees Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon clouds and by damned Joseph Smith couldn't have known to put it there. No way could Joseph Smith have been trying to sound biblical. That is out of the question for our language miner. Leadership may come and go, but, Early Modern English lives on! At least he keeps himself busy, punching out variations on his dubious claims, and at a steady pace. It also provides needed filler so the interpreter chief can continue to keep his streak of weekly "scholarship" intact. So there's that too.
Carmack also seems to miss the extensive linguistic work that's already been done demonstrating how archaic usage patterns are much more likely to be common in rural areas.
It would be the best troll in the world if someone could somehow trick him into "analyzing" text from "The Two Towers" with different names so that he could "prove" it was a true record.
Clark Goble, rip, used to bring up this possibility to Dr. Carmack over at MD&D and suggested that perhaps court records could illuminate the issue. Physics Guy weighed in on it as well. I cited some articles, too, that I found about how some linguists pointed out that Appalachian English was pretty close to Elizabethian (Early Modern English). It was always brushed off and never really engaged by Dr. Carmack. Go figure.
He has his theory. Joseph couldn't have known. End of story.
Re: "The Book of Mormon surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism"
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:36 am
by Alphus and Omegus
Dr Exiled wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:10 am
Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:26 am
Carmack also seems to miss the extensive linguistic work that's already been done demonstrating how archaic usage patterns are much more likely to be common in rural areas.
It would be the best troll in the world if someone could somehow trick him into "analyzing" text from "The Two Towers" with different names so that he could "prove" it was a true record.
Clark Goble, rip, used to bring up this possibility to Dr. Carmack over at MD&D and suggested that perhaps court records could illuminate the issue. Physics Guy weighed in on it as well. I cited some articles, too, that I found about how some linguists pointed out that Appalachian English was pretty close to Elizabethian (Early Modern English). It was always brushed off and never really engaged by Dr. Carmack. Go figure.
He has his theory. Joseph couldn't have known. End of story.
Motivated reasoning is a powerful drug.
Mopologists are just fundamentalists with better vocabularies. And they're just as able to prove their beliefs as the backcountry Bible thumper.
I actually have no problem if someone wants to believe the Book of Mormon is real. But don't use simulacra of academic tools and then claim to have "proved it." No, all you did was created a fake process that looks vaguely similar to the real thing to people who don't know the genuine article. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence, including the mopologist's.
Re: "The Book of Mormon surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism"
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:27 pm
by Moksha
... it surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism.
Did they compare the pseudo-archaic writings of the
Late Great War against the Book of Mormon?
Re: "The Book of Mormon surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism"
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:52 am
by Fence Sitter
Moksha wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:27 pm
... it surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism.
Did they compare the pseudo-archaic writings of the
Late Great War against the Book of Mormon?
I can loan them my copy if they need one.
Re: "The Book of Mormon surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism"
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:56 pm
by sock puppet
Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:36 am
Mopologists are just fundamentalists with better vocabularies. And they're just as able to prove their beliefs as the backcountry Bible thumper.
I actually have no problem if someone wants to believe the Book of Mormon is real. But don't use simulacra of academic tools and then claim to have "proved it." No, all you did was created a fake process that looks vaguely similar to the real thing to people who don't know the genuine article. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence, including the mopologist's.
Very good description of why the FARMS/NAMIRS effort with the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies was an academic fail.
Re: "The Book of Mormon surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism"
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:43 pm
by tapirrider
drumdude wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 4:19 am
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... hat-usage/
A Comparison of the Book of Mormon’s Subordinate
That Usage
Abstract: This paper compares the Book of Mormon’s subordinate that usage with what is found in the King James Bible, pseudo-archaic writings, and the greater textual record. In this linguistic domain, the Book of Mormon manifests as thoroughly archaic, and it surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism. The implications of this set of linguistic data indicate that the translation as originally dictated by Joseph Smith cannot plausibly be explained as the result of Joseph’s own word choices, but it is consistent with the hypothesis that the wording was somehow provided to him.