More Comments From Readers – Part IV

Here are some additional comments and questions from readers of this blog: 
    Comment #1: "I have heard that in the Peruvian Andes which you write a lot about, there are only two basic ancient languages, like in the Book of Mormon, while in Mesoamerica, there are a lot of unrelated languages. Is that correct?” Ginger W.
    Response: Yes, that is correct. We have always found it interesting that before the arrival of the Spanish in Mesoamerica, there were ten major languages (plus each language had numerous dialects) being spoken in Mesoamerica: Uto-Aztecan; Mayan; Isolates; Tequistlatecan; Misumalpan; Oto-Manguean; Mixe-Zoquean; Totonacan; Jicaque; and Chibehan Bizm (one of the major reasons Mesoamericanists claim so vociferously that there were other people in the Land of Promise concurrent with Lehi.)

I=Central Quechua, spoken in six Ecuadorian northern areas; II=A, B, and C, spoken in both northern and southern Peru, as well as western Bolivia and northern Chile as shown today; initially it was spoken everywhere on the map with the exception of around Titicaca and southward
    On the other hand, prior to the arrival of the Spanish, there were just two basic and closely related languages in the Peruvian Andes: Aymara and Quechua. It is interesting that in the Book of Mormon, we know of only two closely related languages: Nephite (Hebrew) and Lamanite (corrupted Hebrew language), the latter people having to be retaught the Nephite language around 100 B.C. (and not all of the Lamanites throughout the Land of Lehi, but those in the vicinity of the original Land of Nephi).
    Of the four languages mentioned in the entire Book of Mormon: 1. Jaredite; 2. Nephite-Hebrew; 3. Mulekite-Hebrew corrupted; and 4: Lamanite-Hebrew corrupted, the Jaredite language was never taught to anyone else according to the scriptural record. Coriantumr, the last Jaredite, could not be understood by the Mulekites, with whom he lived the last nine months of his life and had to write on a rock his history that was later interpreted by Mosiah.
    So of the other three, all were Hebrew based, and we have no record that the Mulekite language persisted past the time of their merger with the Nephites around 200 B.C. Quechua, the language of the Inca, dates back to early B.C. times and remains a fundamental language in present-day Peru, and most notably in the remote, yet still reasonably well-populated Andean regions, and spoken in its dialects throughout the entire continent in every country of South America.
    Despite the language dating back to earliest inhabited times of the Andean regions, and having been monitored over the past 500 years since the Spanish arrived, the language has changed little, even without a written base. However, given that the language is based on a tangible art form rather than a conventional writing system, spelling discrepancies are, unsurprisingly, common and its glottal sounds have led to the production of an incredibly unique written form in modern times. Filled with heavy vowels and multiple commas, Quechan words are usually extremely long and overwhelming to visitors to the country, such as napaykullayki meaning “hello” or tupananchiskama meaning “goodbye.”

As for the Aymara language, it is principally spoken today around the Lake Titicaca area, where the Lamanites, written about in the Book of Mormon, were most heavily concentrated from about 200 B.C. to about 350 A.D. It is also spoken in southern Peru and northern Chile and northwest Argentina, which is merely an extension of the area around Titicaca. While disputed (what isn’t disputed about ancient languages?), many linguists consider Aymara related to Quechua, others consider the closeness of the two languages to be from areal features (meaning its similarities are from diffusion rather than genetic relation, i.e., common ancestor language)—but all agree the two are closely related. In fact, in Rodolfo Cerron-Palomino in his Linguistica Airmara, shows a very firm connection between Quechua and Aymara (Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos "Bartolomé de las Casas", Lima, 2000, pp 34-6).
    In addition, both Quechua and Aymara have been spoken in the area around Titicaca to the north, including Cuzco where, in the time of the Nephites, both Nephites and later Lamanites occupied the area (City of Nephi area). Today, as an example both languages are officially spoken, with 41% speaking Quechua, and 30% speaking Aymara in this area.
    Comment #2: “You did point out that "and of" is a Hebrew carryover, so it's certainly conceivable that Nephi simply wrote a Hebrew word that is translated into English as "both" but in Hebrew usage simply denotes a list of any length” Wonder Boy.
    Response: The word “of” is “shel” which in English means “it belongs to” i.e., in a list, it is one after the other, but always listed in the repeated form in Hebrew:  “and of gold, and of silver, and of copper, as opposed to English, which would simply state: “and gold, and silver, and copper” or “gold, silver, and copper.” In Hebrew, it is never listed as it is in English, but each noun or object follows “and of” as the word “veshel” means and is interpreted. Thus, in Hebrew anciently, it would be written “veshel zahav, veshel keseph, veshel nechash.”
    Comment #3: “Subject and verb: We did find...(What?) Direct object...all manner...(manner of what?) Insertional Prepositional phrase adjective:...of ore...Notice the direct object and prepositional object agreement manner/ore. It's not mannerS/ore, manner/oreS or mannerS/oreS. It's singular, manner/ore. However, with the modifier 'all' it becomes plural, and hence the list refers back to *manner* and NOT ore” Wonder Boy.
    Response: One more time. Since the word “both” NEVER refers to more than two, list or otherwise, and ALWAYS refers to a combination of two things, two people, two kinds, two combinations, etc., we are looking at: “all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.” The subject is clear: both refers to one kind and another kind, and with these three items, two are precious ores, the other is not.

Nephi wrote: “both old and young, both male and female” (1 Nephi 8:27), and also wrote: “both men, women, and children” (2 Nephi 9:21). In both cases, there are two types to go along with “both”

    In the list before that, Nephi writes: “there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals,” you can say that “both” refers to cow and ox, and to ass and horse, and to goat and wild goat, with “and all manner of wild animals” unrelated to the first part of that list following “both.” Or, you can say, “both” 1) cow and ox, ass and horse, goat and wild goat” as domestic or domesticable animals, and 2) all manner of wild animals. The wild goat, by the way, is a domesticable animal since the type of wild goats found in the Americas are “ferel” goats, i.e., they were once domesticated and left (or escaped) to run wild.
    Truly wild animals, on the other hand, are not domesticable and dangerous to be around. They are for the most part carnivorous, generally will attack humans, and can rarely be tamed or domesticated, such as lions, tigers, cougars, jaguars, mountain lions, puma, etc. Animals like horses can be wild and in a wild state, can be dangerous, but they, like many wild animals, do not generally attack humans unless cornered or extremely provoked.
    Comment #4: “In fact, I think there is good reason to think of these three ores as constituting a list rather than a single ore- and that is the antecedent to "gold, silver and copper." They probably refer back to the simple direct object "manner" and not the object of the proposition "ore” Wonder Boy. 

Response: It really doesn’t matter what any of us think about this. Grammar rules set by the "Grammar Police" do not allow for three or more items to follow the word “both” unless they can in some natural way be grouped into two parts, kinds, objects, etc. You might be interested to know that because there are so many grammar mistakes made today (poorer English teaching in school) that The Elements of Style is on its fourth edition.