|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
SOME people may think I am presumptuous to write under such a heading as the above, because I have not had a college education, and understand no tongue but the English, and that very imperfectly. But let it be here suggested that we often have things investigate that we are not professors of. In fact there are so few people who master more than one branch of science that were it not for this fact we would not be allowed to speak upon the general subjects of the day. But as a matter of fact we are surrounded by things and subjects that we must, in part at least, make up our minds on-we must pass opinion.
As a rule there is a way for any of us to investigate any subject we need, and obtain a fair understanding of it. We will get at it in our way. So in investigating the subject before us, it is not necessary for one to go through the various languages and understand all the "ins" and "outs" of translation.
Usually there is some special object to be attained in presenting a subject, and often that object can be attained by investigating only a small part of the great field that would occupy the mind of a careful student or scientist. So with the work at hand. The object being to see if the grammatical errors which may have been made by the Nephites could, would or should have been reproduced in the English translation of our times.
The ancient writers confess their ignorance of writing and apologize to this generation. If the book is what it purports to be, we should excuse and most heartily thank them for having I done the best they could for our information. We give their apology.
I NEPHI 1:1. I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days -nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord In all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days;
2. Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews, and the language of the Egyptians.
3. And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.
MORMON 9:31. Condemn me not because of mine imperfection; neither my father, because of his imperfection; neither them who [which] have written before him, but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than [that which] we have been.
32. And now behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters, which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us according to our manner of speech.
33. And if our plates had been sufficiently large, we should have written in [the] Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in [the] Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no [none] imperfection in our record.
34. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people kmoweth our language, [and because that none other people knoweth our language,] therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.
35. And these things are written, that we may rid our garments of the blood of our brethren who [which] have dwindled in unbelief.
MORMON 8:12. And whoso receiveth this record and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you,
17. And it there be faults, they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault. Nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.
Seven sentences have been selected from the first edition of the Book of Mormon, containing a variety of mistakes which have been corrected. Copies of these sentences were sent to Professors of languages with the simple request to translate. One was asked to translate into German, another into French, and the other into Latin. The last two were kindly furnished, but the German did not come. We illustrate our point with the two.
Other Professors were now asked to translate the Latin and French back into English. So we here submit the three Englishes, the Latin and the French.
1. "The servant done according to his word."
2. "The Lord of the vineyard saith again onto his servant."
3. "He had been a preparing the minds of the people."
4. "He was acknowledged king throughout all the land, among all the people of the Lamanites, which was composed of the Lamanites."
5. "I have wrote unto you."
6. "I trust that the souls of them which has been slain, have entered into the rest of their God."
7. "They retreated into the wilderness again, yea, even back the same way which they had come."
1. "The servant did it from his own faith."
2. "The master of the vineyard speaks again to his servant."
3. "He had prepared the minds of the people."
4. "He is called a king unto all the land among the whole people of the Lamanites who stand among the Lamanites."
5. "I wrote to you."
6. "I hope the souls of those who were killed have entered into the peace of their God."
7. "They again betook themselves into the desert places; thus, even back, in the very way by which they had come."
1. "The servant acted according to his word."
2. "The master Of the vineyard said again to his servant."
3. "He had prepared the minds of the people."
4. "He was recognized as king throughout all the country among all the people of the Lamanites."
5. "I have written to you."
6. "I believe that the souls of those who have been killed have entered into the repose of their God."
7. "They withdrew again into the desert; yea, by the same route over which they had come."
1. Le serviteur agit selon sa parole.
2. Le maitre de la vigne dit encore a son serviteur.
3. Il avait prepare les esprits du peuple.
4. Il etait reconnu comme roi tout an travers du pays, parmi tout le peuple des Lamanites.
5. Je vous ai ecrit.
6. Je crois que les ames de ceux qui ont ete tues, sout entres daus le repos de leur Dieu.
7. Ils se sont retires encore dans le desert, oni, par la meme route sur laquelle ils etaient venus.
1. Servus ex fide suo fecit.
2. Domninus vineae servo suo iterum dicit.
3. Auimos populorum praeparaverat.
4. Ille rex appellatur in terram totam inter omnem populum Laminitum qui in Laminitibus constitit.
5. Ad te scripsi.
6. Spero animos illorum qui necati sunt in pacem Dei suorum inisse.
7. In loca deserta iterum se receperuat; ita, etiam retro in via ipsa qua venerant.
At this point it is quite probable that some readers would enjoy a criticism of the grammatical construction of the original sentences, and since it was furnished by the professors who translated, we feel equal to the occasion.
One of them very modestly said, "If you will allow me first to correct the English of some of the sentences that you sent I will endeavor to translate them into French.
But the other goes further and tells where each sentence is wanting.
"My second comment must be a severe criticism on the grammar of the sentences submitted. The errors are of so gross a nature as to show great ignorance on the part of the original user of the expressions or of one who habitually employs them.
The error in the first consists in the use of a perfect participle for the past-tense form. At no time in the history of the English language was such a usage permitted. So far as I am acquainted with other languages this is not now and never was permitted in them; and if a translation of the English as submitted be insisted upon, all I can say is that it can not be translated.
The second. is correct.
The third while not positively incorrect is at least inelegant in the use of 'a preparing', 'a' being a preposition and 'preparing', a gerund, its object. Before translating, the 'a' must be stricken out.
The error in the forth is in the use of the singular verb 'was' with a plural subject 'which', referring to 'all people'. The sentence is otherwise clumsy. In no language does a plural word as a subject take a singular predicate.
The error in the fifth is in the use of a past-tense form 'wrote' for a perfect participle 'written'. This is nowhere permitted.
The sixth also contains a plural subject, 'which' with a singular predicate, 'has been slain'.
The seventh is clumsy in the omission of needed prepositions before 'same way' and before 'which' respectively."
Some people who are acquainted with language and can see at a glance where the English of the first edition is faulty, may think we are pursuing these little matters just to fill up space. But the experience had up to date is of such a nature as to demand the chasing of every little point of evidence until it vanishes in the distance. Neighbors, and those too who hold the respect of all on political and financial matters, say our language is continually undergoing a change and probably it was translated correctly into the language as it was then, but has simply been changed since to keep pace with a progressive language. But hear what our Professor says of the first sentence "At no time in the history of the English language was such a usage permitted. So far as I am acquainted with other languages this is not now and never was permitted in them. Also in criticising the fourth he says: "In no language does a plural word as a subject take a singular predicate." And in the fifth: "This is nowhere permitted."
If our informant knows what he is talking about, any little consolation that our neighbors might borrow from the thought that the book was translated into correct English at first will have to vanish as the manna of the Israelites did after sunrise, on all week-days.
Another point in connection with the critics in of the first sentence is worth our consideration.
"If a translation of the English as submitted be insisted upon, all I can say is that it cannot be translated." And our other linguist said, If I would allow him to first correct the English he would translate.
If it were ever so great a crime to wonder, my mind is so framed that I can not avoid wondering what the apology of the ancient writers of the B. of M amounts to. It is calculated to account for the bad grammar. But our modern students of language cannot translate such grammatical errors from one language to another. If we will now turn back and compare the Englishes we will see that while they differ a little from each other the grammatical errors have been eliminated. seventh have been supplied. From the French we get "by" and "over". From the Latin we get "in" and "by".
Referring to the matter of translating grammatical errors, one of the Professors informs me that there are some kinds of errors, that can be translate from one language into another, but further said that if his students were translating a sentence with a grammatical error in it he would expect them first to correct the error, unless it was a slang phrase which depended upon the error for its significance.
Besides criticising the sentences our Professor tells us briefly but plainly what a translation is.
"My first statement must be an explanation of a translation. It is not an exact setting over, word for word, from one language to another; but the using of such expressions in one language as conveys the same idea to one who speaks that language as the words of another language conveys to one who speaks that other language. Thus 'How do you do' conveys the same idea to an American as 'Wie geht's' conveys to a German; but the word for word equivalent in English of the German form is, 'How goes it'. Any Latin equivalent for English expressions must be of the same nature.
We wish here to call attention to the fact that a translation is not a "word for word" setting over from one language to another, but it is simply conveying the thoughts of one language in words conveying the same thoughts in the other. If we will compare our French, Latin and English we will observe that the words look nothing alike, we may be sure that they would sound nothing alike if spoken. And all of us have seen enough foreigners who mix up the grammatical parts of the sentence in such a way that we may know that the parts of speech are differently arranged. In fact the construction of the whole language is different. This being true what excuse is there for the thousands of grammatical errors in the first edition of the book which God himself condescends to translate that we might have his law in its purity? Why should He inspire his servants to write the following article of faith? "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God".?
Please note in this article not one word of allowance is made for wrong translation of time B. of M.
Is such a work a marvel and a wonder in any other sense than that men would prepare it and that so many would believe it came from God. This are willing to admit is marvelous; and when superficially examined I felt like exclaiming in the language of King Agrippa, "Almost thou persuadest me to believe".
We might now, with profit, return to page 20 and again consider 'Martin Harris' statement, that the plates were translated in precisely the same language that was used by the ancients. It will be remembered that we thought he could not have understood what he was saying. That he did not know the meaning of his own words. The idea we have is, for this to be true, the "Reformed Egyptian," which was cut loose from civilization twenty-four hundred years ago, must have developed into a grammatical construction very similar to that of the English language of today. They may have had word signs which differed from ours in appearance, and when these words were sounded they may not have been recognizable to an ear used to the English words only. But the arrangement of the parts of speech must have been similar. This is not all, indeed it is not the half. They must have had become accustomed to making the same kinds of grammatical errors that were common in Joseph's time. Furthermore, they must have used the relative pronoun "which" for "who" just as the translators of the Bible did two hundred forty years before, which was good English at that time, but was not allowable in the days of Joseph Smith. They must have been in the habit of using a superfluous "a" as illustrated in our last four illustrative sentences, pages 52-3. Double negatives, which are directly contrary in letter to the spirit of the sentence, a common error among us must have been common then also. In fact the errors resemble back-woods English so closely that one would be justified in rejecting the whole work on that one point alone, until conclusive evidence to the contrary is produced.
We do not wish to say positively that it is impossible for a language to have been, at that time, similar to the English of to-day. Yes it might have included the local peculiarities of Joseph's neighborhood. God is pictured to us as possessing all power. So of course he could by special design cause the ancient inhabitants of America to acquire a language of any kind He saw fit. But we do wish to express an opinion that nothing short of special interposition of the hand of Providence would have produced a language, which, when translated "precisely in the language then used," "correct in every particular, would resemble the English of Joseph's day; and even include such little grammatical errors as an illiterate person of Joseph's day would be sure to use if he wrote his own thoughts in his own way. If the work be true we have a circumstance, the like of which has never before been discovered in all the research of modern scientists.
We give below what we think the first edition should have been, coming from the source it is claimed to have come from. In this consideration we allow that the ancient writers of the book may have been ever so illiterate; and their work may have been ever so full of errors. The urim and thummim should have brought up the thoughts of the ancients. And even if these thoughts were originally clothed in language full of ambiguity it should have appeared on the urim and thummim in perfect English. We must ever bear in mind that a translation is not a setting over of words. It deals with thoughts. And be it remembered that God was producing a marvelous work and a wonder. The wisdom of the wise was to be hid because He was going to so far surpass it. The Book of Mormon, then should have been a model of perfection. It should have stood out alone, a solitary pinnacle which linguists would have peeped at through a telescope from afar. It should have been a book which educators would have taken into the school room from one end of civilization to the other. No this is not asking too much. Shakspeare has stood out an unapproachable pinnacle in his line for centuries. And while he seems mighty to the scholars of today, he should have been a mere speck when compared with the work of Almighty God. The language of the Book of Mormon should have been absolutely perfect. In every case the very best word for the place should have been used. Linguists tell us that there are no synonyms, but that there is a fine shade of difference of meaning in all English words. This book, then would have been a mine of treasures. All the fine shades of meaning would have been displayed by God Himself, and all educated people would have praised the book forever more. Because any other meaning except the proper one would be impossible. Not a word could have been eliminated, added nor exchanged for another without inflicting an injury on the book. There would have been no call for such a remark as Elder Roberts made in the Bountiful meeting house in the presence of President Joseph F. Smith, at the quarterly conference, in March, 1897; that he wished the book had been changed (amended) more. More than two-thousand amendments had already been made, which improved the, book very much, and still God's translation is in such a shape that Elder Roberts wishes they had amended it more.
It may be urged by some that had this been the case it would be claimed that an educated person did it, and the book should be disbelieved on that account. But to this we would reply, that the claim is made that the "ALL WISE" did do it. No danger of men saying that man did it. For it would have so far surpassed any thing man had done or could do that they would be obliged to look higher than man for the source. Now men say it was so full of the commonest kind of errors that an ignorant person must have done it. "There is plenty of room at the top," so if God translated the Book of Mormon it should have been on top so far clearness is concerned.
Main Table of
Contents