Right on Target!

[_Symmachus]

Symmachus, I didn't say 100 lexical items and a few syntactic features. Said 100+ of lexical and syntactic, leaving unspecified how many of each. In effect you are stipulating that the OED is wrong about many meanings declared to be obsolete, that they were part of upstate NY or New England dialect. Yet as you know, Symm, some of those declarations are correct. Not all of them will be ruled out by examination of new corpora. And some of the obsolescence preceded colonization. So you are left with an idiolect theory in which the idiolect differs substantively from the dialect.

Scorndog, your more plausible explanation is:

Since you scorn the language as artless and lifeless, then you likewise scorn past literary giants such as Shakespeare, Spenser, Milton, and Swift, since some of their language is found in the text, as Skousen pointed out with Mosiah 7:1, shown above, and as is known from the well-known Hamlet plagiarism, etc.

Oh, please. If you think the mere presence of "but if" is sufficient to qualify as literary artistry, you're not worth my time.

[_Symmachus]

Symmachus, I didn't say 100 lexical items and a few syntactic features. Said 100+ of lexical and syntactic, leaving unspecified how many of each.

So how many? And how much weight do you give to each?

In effect you are stipulating that the OED is wrong about many meanings declared to be obsolete, that they were part of upstate NY or New England dialect.

There is a reason they update the OED. If Skousen has discovered archaisms previously unattested, he has made an interesting discovery and should submit that research. It does not follow from that discovery, though, that these archasisms (no doubt there are tens of thousands of them ) are the result of supernatural influence.

Yet as you know, Symm, some of those declarations are correct

No kidding.

Not all of them will be ruled out by examination of new corpora.

Probably true. So what?

And some of the obsolescence preceded colonization.

That remains to be shown, so you are establishing your argument by restating the question the argument is supposed to answer.

So you are left with an idiolect theory in which the idiolect differs substantively from the dialect.

How do you know that? Just name me one study on the dialect of New York farmers circa 1830, then name me the one on which you are basing that assertion.

[_scorndog]

If you think the mere presence of "but if" is sufficient to qualify as literary artistry, you're not worth my time.

Never wrote that or thought that, of course. I pointed you to the Swift language, which you never addressed, I mentioned the Hamlet "plagiarism", "methought I saw" is poetic, found in Milton, found in the text. There are many others. Good luck with your idiolect theory, Symmachus.

[_Symmachus]

Good luck with your idiolect theory, Symmachus.

I have no theory; I have just pointed out that there is a menu of linguistic explanations that don't require the supernatural.

So, tell us please: what theory do you find plausible to account for these "archaisms," Scorndog?

[_Symmachus]

On this "idiolect" theory, that is a complete mischaracterization, Scorndog, and you seem not to realize where the linguistic priorities lay. You are assuming that your list of lexical and minor syntactical features are significantly differentiated from the surrounding dialect, so there are two possible explanations:

1) We are dealing with a naturally acquired idiolect.

2) We are dealing with an unnaturally acquired idiolect.

You clearly favor 2) but you have yet to explain why. But what I've been addressing is your basic assumption. You have to show first that the lexical and minor syntactical features are significantly differentiated from the surrounding dialect. All I have seen to support that assumption is

1) comparison to KJB
2) comparison to View of the Hebrews
3) reference to OED
4) there are 100+

1) and 2) taken together are not sufficient corpus, and you are ignoring vast quantities of material (how convenient). Have you looked even at local newspapers? Sermons? Diaries? What have you looked at besides these KJB and VH? As for 3), the OED is a descriptive reference tool and a very general one at that. It is not a corpus of its own and is susceptible to updating and improvement all the time, so it's at best a start point, but it's hardly a definitive lexicographical resource for the dialect of upstate New York or even New England. It is NOT a data point. And as for 4) that's essentially irrelevant without knowing what kind features we are talking about and how systematic they are. And even the few you have shown are not really that significant. I mean, "but if" for "unless" is pretty meaningless. Hundreds of examples of just that one might be interesting, but once or twice is not that meaningful. And of course if there were hundreds of examples of that, those would only be meaningful if that usage were rare to non-existent outside of the Book of Mormon text. Only then could we start talking in terms of a significant "idiolect" that calls for explanation. You/Skousen have yet to demonstrate any of this, though.

You have to establish that your assumption is accurate before you can even begin to weigh explanations, but it seems that you've skipped the hard work and gone straight to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit (or some other supernatural force to which no one has any independently verifiable access) is behind all of this.

The problem I need to solve now, though, is why I have even taken my time to engage your crackpot assumptions when you don't have the decency to admit you believe this is all supernatural, thereby freeing me from the obligation to take you seriously.

[_EAllusion]

So, tell us please: what theory do you find plausible to account for these "archaisms," Scorndog?

Based on the context, he seems to believe the most plausible explanation is that the text is a translation by a divinely guided council of dead-spirits from the late middle ages of a ancient American record in a unknown language that is derivative in some way of the Semitic language family that in turn was translated (transcribed?) by a 19th century New Yorker. It's not sufficient to criticize the ability of evidence to justify any other account and hold this up as a default alternative to be assumed true unless another theory takes its place. This requires its own framework of support to establish. Otherwise, I'm reminded of people who believe extraterrestrials built the pyramids at Giza that assume this to be true on the basis of remaining unpersuaded by any account that attempts to detail out how ancient Egyptians did it. They'll nitpick the acceptance of any other theory to death while not providing anything resembling a coherent account of how the aliens did it theory is supported by, rather that simply defined to fit, the evidence.

[_Kishkumen]

I think it's fairly clear that what these archaisms prove is that the ghosts of John Dee and Edward Kelley communicated the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith from beyond the grave.

[_zeezrom]

You know what's interesting? These "bullseyes" mentioned by apologists seem to most often be associated with the old world (eg Assyria, Isreal, Egypt, etc) and are rarely associated with the Americas. So why are we even looking to America as the context of the book? Is it simply an assumption that never dies?

[_Dr. Shades]

You know what's interesting? These "bullseyes" mentioned by apologists seem to most often be associated with the old world (eg Assyria, Isreal, Egypt, etc) and are rarely associated with the Americas. So why are we even looking to America as the context of the book? Is it simply an assumption that never dies?

No, it's not an assumption at all. Doctrine and Covenants 54:8 reads:

And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.

So God thinks the Book of Mormon took place somewhere in the Americas, with the Lamanites having spread to Missouri by then.

[_Symmachus]

So God thinks the Book of Mormon took place somewhere in the Americas, with the Lamanites having spread to Missouri by then.

Yeah, but He's been wrong before.