Every time I look at this research, another thing comes up wonky.
The very first phrase from pre-print part 4 that is determined to be evidence the Book of Mormon language is archaic is "drink in with."
This phrase was also in Skousen's NOL, in a section where they were considering whether phrases were original to Joseph Smith, or archaic:
...In this section of NOL, we are not trying to prove that these expressions never existed during Joseph Smith’s time. To the contrary, they did. Instead, our goal here is to find them being used from the mid-1500s up through the mid-1700s. Here are some examples that at first we thought we would not find in that earlier time period; we were wrong:
....1599, King James VI drinking in with their very nourish-milk
This phrase is now listed as an archaic phrase no longer in use, with this explanation:
Drink in with:
“not long after their dissension / they became more hardened and impenitent and more wild wicked
and ferocious than the Lamanites /drinking in with the traditions of the Lamanites”
(Alma 47:36)
The expression “to drink in with the traditions of the Lamanites” seems to imply absorbing or fully adopting the Lamanite traditions, as if these traditions were a kind of liquor. A similar example of this usage appears to be one by James VI of Scotland, dating from 1599, cited in NOL,
that refers to drinking in “a feck-less arrogant conceit of their greatness and power . . . with their very nurse-milk”, that is, an arrogant conceit absorbed from infancy.
I bolded the partial quote, because in my opinion, the way he partially quoted it then used ellipses to rearrange it disguises what the quote actually says. Here it is:
The natural sickness that I have perceived this estate subject to in my time, hath been, a feckless arrogant conceit of their greatness and power; drinking in with their very nourish-milk, that their honor stood in committing three points of iniquity...
https://www.lorenzburg.org/en/2016/03/1 ... g-james-i/
Maybe a linguist can weigh in, but isn't "with their very nourish-milk" a clause that is separate from the phrase, "drinking in"?
In my opinion, it does NOT seem like a similar example, and it does NOT match the particular Book of Mormon phrase "drinking in with."
The two other examples Carmack and Skousen listed from the 1700s don't seem to match what they are looking for either:
Here are a couple more examples of “to drink in with”, both from ECCO and dating from the early 1700s. The first is more literal and refers to an actual drink (like James VI’s example); the second is metaphorical, like Alma 47:36:
before 1716, John Edwards (died 1716),
Theologia Reformata
[published in 1726]
Among the direful e›ects and consequences of extravagant drinking this must not be
omitted, that the soul and all its faculties are corrupted and debauched by it. False notions
are drunk in with the wine: undue and unbecoming apprehensions are entertained.
1726, Daniel Defoe,
Mere Nature Delineated Will he not drink in with the religion he is like to learn here such horrid and execrable
blasphemies of the God he is taught to fear, as must form incongruous notions of all religion
in his head?
In both these examples, it seems that "drink in" is followed by a clause; "with the wine" or "with the religion."
Of course there are many, many examples of "drink in" followed by a clause starting with "with" in every relevant century, but C&S ignore that, insisting instead that "drink in with" is a full, archaic phrase. Unfortunately, they provide NO evidence that this is the case.
(they do this with at least one other phrase as well; specifically "consigned that," as though adding in a "that" makes it a unique archaic phrase instead of just a non-archaic word.)
To try to understand their point, I looked at the Printer's Manuscript for this Book of Mormon passage, and, to my surprise, found some discrepancies there also. Here is what is actually written in the Printers manuscript:
...relate not long after their dissensions they became more hardened impenitant more wild wicked ferosious than the Lamanites drind < drinking > in with the traditions of the Lama nites giving way to indolence all manner of lasciviousness yea entirely for...
In the handwritten manuscript, "drind" is first written, then stricken out, with a caret inserted and above it written "drinding," then after that in darker ink the "d" is marked as a "k" so the word reads "drinking."
It's very unclear what is intended, but guess who gets to decide what scribe markings to use and which to ignore for the critical text? If you guessed Skousen, you are correct. In this case, to support his archaic theory he kept the scribe's correction, but in a previous case I investigated, in order to support his archaic theory he has rejected the scribe's correction.
The appearance of bias is immense.
And last, look at the full Book of Mormon quote, not just the part Carmack and Skousen have excerpted:
36 Now these dissenters, having the same instruction and the same information of the Nephites, yea, having been instructed in the same knowledge of the Lord, nevertheless, it is strange to relate, not long after their dissensions they became more hardened and impenitent, and more wild, wicked and ferocious than the Lamanites—drinking in with the traditions of the Lamanites; giving way to indolence, and all manner of lasciviousness; yea, entirely forgetting the Lord their God.
The passage seems to clearly imply that the dissenters go beyond the traditions of the Lamanites to a worse place. To truncate this passage in order to imply the dissenters are fully engaging ("drinking in with") the traditions rather than going beyond them seems like a move intended only to support the Early Modern English hypothesis rather than an attempt to truly understand the intent.
Bottom line, Carmack and Skousen have, in my opinion, engaged in a grossly manipulated analysis in order to attempt to continue supporting their archaic hypothesis. It is not credible. Legitimate peer review would have helped considerably.
