Carmack/Skousen: "Virtually none of the grammatical variants listed in section 4-archaic grammar are archaic."

[Gabriel]

This is a fascinating thread and I've read the whole thing a couple of times now. What a group of minds are congregated here!

I don't think I can bring anything to the table other than a couple uncredentialed impressions:

1) It seems that the proponents of this theory have shot their wad. They have scoured the B of M for archaisms and laid them all on the table. When their proposed archaisms are demonstrated to be invalid it's not as if they have a fresh supply of new examples up their sleeves to bring forth to an astonished world for further consideration.

2) As for the gentleman who said something to the effect that critics of this theory should be worried. It seems to me that he is projecting a bit. He is assuming that his critics are under the psychological burden to engage in the intense study needed to prove his theory wrong while at the same time he has yet to prove that it is right. It's a little like saying that critics of B of M archeology are under the obligation to dig up every inch of land in the Americas to prove that there was no city of Zarahemla. In order to try to bolster their argument for genuine archaisms it seems to me that proponents of Early Modern English have the unenviable burden of waking up each day to examine the data bases in search of the very thing that they dread to find: Persistence.

3) I have had a couple occasions in my work life where I was told by my superiors to slow down a bit. They didn't want the project to be completed ahead of schedule as *that* would effect how much would be alloted to the department's budget by higher ups in the future. I can't help but wonder if a similar dynamic may be going on here.

[Lem]

I know what they are trying to say, and perhaps it's pedantic or churlish of me to complain, but "26 remain archaic" implies that the 26 items have been established as archaic - that is, this looks a lot like begging the question to me.

Based on the latest concessions, would it not be more accurate to assign these 26 items a status of "proposed archaism - not yet overturned"?

this is a good point, and not pedantic at all. A better way to state the results, I hope, would be this:

I don't mind the change in theory, he really can't avoid it, but just as a reminder, based on the recent retractions published by the Interpreter, here is the count as it currently stands:

Section 1, Archaic Vocabulary: 26 proposed as archaic [out of 41 originally proposed, 37% have been retracted]

Section 3, Archaic Phrases: 14 proposed as archaic [out of 29 originally proposed, 52% have been retracted]

Section 4, Archaic Grammar: 2 proposed as archaic[out of 15 originally proposed, 87% have been retracted]

Section 7, Archaic Expressions: 7 proposed as archaic [out of 37 originally proposed, 81% have been retracted]

For an average retraction of 60% of previously published results, most or all included in the sales of hardcover, expensive publications.

[Lem]

This is a fascinating thread and I've read the whole thing a couple of times now. What a group of minds are congregated here!

just wait til symmachus weighs in (hopefully.) it'll blow your mind!

2) As for the gentleman who said something to the effect that critics of this theory should be worried. It seems to me that he is projecting a bit. He is assuming that his critics are under the psychological burden to engage in the intense study needed to prove his theory wrong while at the same time he has yet to prove that it is right. It's a little like saying that critics of B of M archeology are under the obligation to dig up every inch of land in the Americas to prove that there was no city of Zarahemla. In order to try to bolster their argument for genuine archaisms it seems to me that proponents of Early Modern English have the unenviable burden of waking up each day to examine the data bases in search of the very thing that they dread to find: Persistence.

His comment was a little weird, I agree. Prior to that I had seen him strictly as a researcher and thought of his work in that manner. Suddenly, though, there was this, in my opinion unnecessarily antagonistic comment. All I assume is that our comments to him were obviously filtered through Peterson and he has no professional manner so maybe it's no surprise it was escalated. Peterson has a problem with professionalism.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What an appropriate analogy. Speaking of idiot statements ...

The fact is that most ancient artifacts haven’t survived. In fact, they often disappeared quite a long time ago, maybe only a very little while after they were discarded or abandoned. And, if they survived, the odds of their being found at all are very low. And if they’re found, there’s a good chance that they’ll be found by sheer chance, and that the archaeological context out of which they come won’t be noticed or remembered. Even if professionals find them, though, the odds are sadly quite high, historically speaking, that no adequate archaeological report will be written up on them — finding stuff is fun; writing up reports can be dull — which means that the archaeological context out of which they emerge will never be known to most others and will be forgotten. And even conscientious archaeologists will often misinterpret what they find. (As brilliantly illustrated in David Macauley’s class 1979 satire Motel of the Mysteries.). And so forth.

Welp. Guess we don’t have to worry about Book of Mormon artifacts! BYU professor, folks.

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

This is why the LGT is such a good theory for the mopologists: they always have the convenient excuse that the jungle climate must have destroyed the evidence, so one has to have faith in theories such as the Early Modern English ghost theory or Nahom, just as Jesus wanted.

[Lem]

What an appropriate analogy. Speaking of idiot statements ...

The fact is that most ancient artifacts haven’t survived. In fact, they often disappeared quite a long time ago, maybe only a very little while after they were discarded or abandoned. And, if they survived, the odds of their being found at all are very low. And if they’re found, there’s a good chance that they’ll be found by sheer chance, and that the archaeological context out of which they come won’t be noticed or remembered. Even if professionals find them, though, the odds are sadly quite high, historically speaking, that no adequate archaeological report will be written up on them — finding stuff is fun; writing up reports can be dull — which means that the archaeological context out of which they emerge will never be known to most others and will be forgotten. And even conscientious archaeologists will often misinterpret what they find. (As brilliantly illustrated in David Macauley’s class 1979 satire Motel of the Mysteries.). And so forth.

Welp. Guess we don’t have to worry about Book of Mormon artifacts! BYU professor, folks.

- Doc

In this context, I noticed Peterson was recommending the late Hamblin's work:
"Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon."

I recall Jenkins didn't think much of this article but I hadn't read it before, so I took a quick look.

In it, Hamblin invokes the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority," in an attempt to counteract Michael Coe's opinion about Mayan culture. Yes, that Michael Coe, the one who is "among the foremost Mayanists of the late 20th Century."

All due respect to a fallen fellow academic, may he rest in peace, but Peterson PUBLISHED a paper where a Mormon apologist objects to the specified and published, very specific opinion of a foremost authority on a topic, on the grounds that it is a logical fallacy to 'appeal to authority'??????

Dear god, is this the nonsense Peterson has been pushing?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What’s ridiculous about Mr. Peterson’s tactic is that he both denigrates whatever science he’s attacking while simultaneously upholding it as trustworthy if said scientist is a believer. From the blog entry we’re referencing, he wraps up his equivocating with a clumsy analogy someone made about fishing in the ocean with a net full of holes, and therefore your findings are flawed and ergo Mormonism is still true enough. Or whatever.

- Doc