Let's talk about "sheum"

[_moksha]

You lost me.

In algebra I was lost at C.

[_charity]

If you are interested in the topic, you can read about it here:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... pts&id=126

[_GoodK]

If you are interested in the topic, you can read about it here:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... pts&id=126

Thanks.

I wonder why there hasn't been much discussion on this. Peterson offers this as one of the biggest pieces of "evidence" for the Book of Mormon.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I know you have no reason to take people’s blanket statements as fact, but I researched this a bit, and “sheum/s’em/and all its derivatives” is/are an Akkadian word that was not known/deciphered until 1857-ish. If you wish, you may email Bridget Samuels at Harvard University (bdsamuel@fas.harvard.edu) – and of course I hope it goes without saying that you will not bother her unless absolutely necessary, and that if you do deem it necessary that you keep the email professional and concise – regarding the word and the deciphering of Akkadian. The notes I have (without diving into it more) have her as the primary source of one of the articles that confirm this. I was frustrated upon reading the Maxwell article as well as FAIR/Jeff Lindsey/SHIELDS/etc. articles that claimed this as an evidence, yet did not provide any evidence to confirm that this particular word was unknown prior to 1857-ish.

Or, if you really want, I can find the books/articles (all available online either through google.books or university websites) that back this one up. This is definitely (in my opinion) one of those “hmmmm…” things.

[_CaliforniaKid]

This is not one of the evidences that I have tended to find impressive. The Jaredites would have departed Akkad around 2200 B.C. and then were annihilated after 1600+ years in the New World. Although only one of them is supposed to have survived, FARMS scholars conjecture that there were others and that bits and pieces of the Jaredite language-- especially their names-- passed into the Mulekite culture. Then in the time of Zeniff, about 2000 years after the Jaredite emigration, the word "sheum" shows up in a text written by a Mulekite in the Nephite language. And we're supposed to believe that this is "evidence" for the Book of Mormon because, obviously, it's an Akkadian loanword.

Even in a culture with a written language and a central government, language changes. The probability that the Jaredite language would have been at all recognizable after 2000 years of isolation from the Old World-- especially when interacting with Native American cultures-- is extremely slim. Then there's a catastrophic civil war with a minimal number of survivors, who would likely have been assimilated by surrounding cultures and to have adopted the languages of those cultures. Coriantumr died before he could convey much of his language, and the text that was miraculously translated apparently makes no reference to sheum. What are the odds that the Jaredite tongue would have made any recognizable impact on Mulekite cultures? And what are the odds that when writing in Nephite our Mulekite author would use a Mulekite/Jaredite loanword? And what are the odds that the loanword used just happened to be a word that had been preserved virtually unchanged from the original Akkadian? And what are the odds that such a word just happens to be one that Joseph Smith chose to transliterate rather than "translate"? Sorry folks, this one's just too much of a stretch for me.

Som etime ago David Bokovoy wrote at MADB,

We don’t know how Mesopotamians pronounced the word, but by 600 BC, the form appears without a final “m.” In Akkadian, the phenomenon known as mimmation disappeared after the Old Babylonian period, i.e., 1500 BC.

Technically, the Akkadian word for barley is “she” The “u” vowel is the nominative case ending. If the word appeared as a direct object, i.e., accusative form, it would contain an “a” vowel, As a genitival form, the word would appear with a final “i.”

If anyone cares to look up the Akkadian word for barley, you will find it listed in the CAD or the Concise Akkadian Ditionary under sheu(m).

So this is an iffy "hit" anyway. Optional mimation and toss-up vowels make coincidental duplication of an Akkadian word considerably more likely than it would be otherwise. And of course, FARMS scholars have the option of looking in a half-dozen different languages for parallels. This would be touted as a parallel if it were found in Mayan, Egyptian, Hebrew, Sumerian, or even Arabic.

In other words, it doesn't bother me one bit to chalk this "hit" up to dumb luck.

[_GoodK]

I know you have no reason to take people’s blanket statements as fact, but I researched this a bit, and “sheum/s’em/and all its derivatives” is/are an Akkadian word that was not known/deciphered until 1857-ish. If you wish, you may email Bridget Samuels at Harvard University (bdsamuel@fas.harvard.edu) – and of course I hope it goes without saying that you will not bother her unless absolutely necessary, and that if you do deem it necessary that you keep the email professional and concise – regarding the word and the deciphering of Akkadian. The notes I have (without diving into it more) have her as the primary source of one of the articles that confirm this. I was frustrated upon reading the Maxwell article as well as FAIR/Jeff Lindsey/SHIELDS/etc. articles that claimed this as an evidence, yet did not provide any evidence to confirm that this particular word was unknown prior to 1857-ish.

Or, if you really want, I can find the books/articles (all available online either through google.books or university websites) that back this one up. This is definitely (in my opinion) one of those “hmmmm…” things.

Yes, I want...

I agree, it is one of those "hmmm" things... In fact it's a BIG hmmm for me - if it is in fact a truthful claim.
I'm not sure how we can know that the word wasn't deciphered until the late 1850's. The only thing I could substantially verify was that The Epic of the Gilgamesh was first translated around that time. I'm not sure if the language was utterly untranslated prior to that, my gut tells me that there must have been some earlier translations for George Smith to work from.

I'm not sure what I can do with that email address, but I would appreciate any names of books or research on the matter (besides what FARMS has).

Thanks for the help

GOODk

[_GoodK]

This is not one of the evidences that I have tended to find impressive. The Jaredites would have departed Akkad around 2200 B.C. and then were annihilated after 1600+ years in the New World. Although only one of them is supposed to have survived, FARMS scholars conjecture that there were others and that bits and pieces of the Jaredite language-- especially their names-- passed into the Mulekite culture. Then in the time of Zeniff, about 2000 years after the Jaredite emigration, the word "sheum" shows up in a text written by a Mulekite in the Nephite language. And we're supposed to believe that this is "evidence" for the Book of Mormon because, obviously, it's an Akkadian loanword.

Even in a culture with a written language and a central government, language changes. The probability that the Jaredite language would have been at all recognizable after 2000 years of isolation from the Old World-- especially when interacting with Native American cultures-- is extremely slim. Then there's a catastrophic civil war with a minimal number of survivors, who would likely have been assimilated by surrounding cultures and to have adopted the languages of those cultures. Coriantumr died before he could convey much of his language, and the text that was miraculously translated apparently makes no reference to sheum. What are the odds that the Jaredite tongue would have made any recognizable impact on Mulekite cultures? And what are the odds that when writing in Nephite our Mulekite author would use a Mulekite/Jaredite loanword? And what are the odds that the loanword used just happened to be a word that had been preserved virtually unchanged from the original Akkadian? And what are the odds that such a word just happens to be one that Joseph Smith chose to transliterate rather than "translate"? Sorry folks, this one's just too much of a stretch for me.

Som etime ago David Bokovoy wrote at MADB,

We don’t know how Mesopotamians pronounced the word, but by 600 BC, the form appears without a final “m.” In Akkadian, the phenomenon known as mimmation disappeared after the Old Babylonian period, I.e., 1500 BC.

Technically, the Akkadian word for barley is “she” The “u” vowel is the nominative case ending. If the word appeared as a direct object, I.e., accusative form, it would contain an “a” vowel, As a genitival form, the word would appear with a final “I.”

If anyone cares to look up the Akkadian word for barley, you will find it listed in the CAD or the Concise Akkadian Ditionary under sheu(m).

So this is an iffy "hit" anyway. Optional mimation and toss-up vowels make coincidental duplication of an Akkadian word considerably more likely than it would be otherwise. And of course, FARMS scholars have the option of looking in a half-dozen different languages for parallels. This would be touted as a parallel if it were found in Mayan, Egyptian, Hebrew, Sumerian, or even Arabic.

In other words, it doesn't bother me one bit to chalk this "hit" up to dumb luck.

Using the word "hit" here shows me that you are familiar with this topic. I appreciate the information...

[_Doctor Steuss]

Yes, I want...

I agree, it is one of those "hmmm" things... In fact it's a BIG hmmm for me - if it is in fact a truthful claim.
I'm not sure how we can know that the word wasn't deciphered until the late 1850's. The only thing I could substantially verify was that The Epic of the Gilgamesh was first translated around that time. I'm not sure if the language was utterly untranslated prior to that, my gut tells me that there must have been some earlier translations for George Smith to work from.

I'm not sure what I can do with that email address, but I would appreciate any names of books or research on the matter (besides what FARMS has).

Thanks for the help

GOODk

I'm sorry for this taking so long. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find all of my crap (you'd think I'd learn to keep everything together instead of a note tucked away in this book, another note with another, several loose things in my laptop case, random files saved... I'm a mess). All I've been able to find is a piece of paper with the following quote:
Akkadian
--Was a Semitic language spoken in Mesopotamia from the around -3000 to 100. Four scholars (Rawlinson, Oppert, Talbot, & Hincks) first successfully read an Akkadian text in 1857

The website that I have with the note (http://www.bridgetsamuels.com/linguisti ... andout.pdf) doesn't pull up anything, so I'm guessing it's been moved. The paper also says that page 12 of Dictionary of Languages by Andrew Dalby (Columbia University Press, 2004) has a supporting entry regarding the 1857 date. And then I don't know if this has anything to do with the topic, but since it's on the paper with the other junk, I figure I'll throw it out, “Comparative translations of the Inscription of Tiglath Pileser I,” in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland,18 (1961).

I found this today (for whatever it's worth):
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeol ... eiform.htm
By 1847 he published a list of their signs and meanings. With the writings of Rawlinson and Hincks the Akkadian language was deciphered. Hincks was right in observing the signs stand for syllables. The final test came in 1857 when four scholars, Rawlinson, Hincks, Henry Talbot, and Jules Oppert independently translated the same script and came up with virtually the same translation.


Chris,
Thank you for your post. Much to think about there. It seems as time goes on, the things that I once thought to be "impressive" (i.e. NHM) are slowly dwindling into obscurity.

[_maklelan]

Chris,
Thank you for your post. Much to think about there. It seems as time goes on, the things that I once thought to be "impressive" (I.e. NHM) are slowly dwindling into obscurity.

Hey man, you'll always have irreantum.

By the way, did you receive your books?

[_GoodK]

Yes, I want...

I agree, it is one of those "hmmm" things... In fact it's a BIG hmmm for me - if it is in fact a truthful claim.
I'm not sure how we can know that the word wasn't deciphered until the late 1850's. The only thing I could substantially verify was that The Epic of the Gilgamesh was first translated around that time. I'm not sure if the language was utterly untranslated prior to that, my gut tells me that there must have been some earlier translations for George Smith to work from.

I'm not sure what I can do with that email address, but I would appreciate any names of books or research on the matter (besides what FARMS has).

Thanks for the help

GOODk

I'm sorry for this taking so long. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find all of my crap (you'd think I'd learn to keep everything together instead of a note tucked away in this book, another note with another, several loose things in my laptop case, random files saved... I'm a mess). All I've been able to find is a piece of paper with the following quote:
Akkadian
--Was a Semitic language spoken in Mesopotamia from the around -3000 to 100. Four scholars (Rawlinson, Oppert, Talbot, & Hincks) first successfully read an Akkadian text in 1857

The website that I have with the note (http://www.bridgetsamuels.com/linguisti ... andout.pdf) doesn't pull up anything, so I'm guessing it's been moved. The paper also says that page 12 of Dictionary of Languages by Andrew Dalby (Columbia University Press, 2004) has a supporting entry regarding the 1857 date. And then I don't know if this has anything to do with the topic, but since it's on the paper with the other junk, I figure I'll throw it out, “Comparative translations of the Inscription of Tiglath Pileser I,” in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland,18 (1961).

I found this today (for whatever it's worth):
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeol ... eiform.htm
By 1847 he published a list of their signs and meanings. With the writings of Rawlinson and Hincks the Akkadian language was deciphered. Hincks was right in observing the signs stand for syllables. The final test came in 1857 when four scholars, Rawlinson, Hincks, Henry Talbot, and Jules Oppert independently translated the same script and came up with virtually the same translation.

Thank you.