“Wither she did go” ??

[Shulem]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think ancient (600 BC) Jews or ship captains in Israel referred to their vessels using the feminine pronouns of she & her in a literal sense. There is no reason for me to believe that.

The problem here is an over-literal reading of the grammatical terminology "masculine" and "feminine." The use of "she" with ships is not a question of grammar but of usage.

Right, it's the usage that concerns me which refers to a common habit or general perception of the word as it is used in phrases and can be quite subjective. I happen to think that Joseph Smith was well aware of how ships were referred to in his day through various literature, customs, and in books such as Late War and even a poem by Wordsworth in which ships were given a strict feminine meaning. The poem I cited above reflects an ultimate feminine quality as if "she" was wooed by a "lover" and she is dressed in the finest tackling and apparel. Clearly, we are not talking about grammar! We are talking about ships being ladies at sea! It is all very subjective. I believe that is the quality Smith was exhibiting in the two references of the Book of Mormon about ships being a lady. Mormon 5:18 more or less turns the ship into a bloody whore. That is subjective usage.

Dr. Steuss is correct about the Hebrew word for ship being feminine, and any pronoun referring to it would also be feminine, as would any adjectives modifying the noun. So, yes, in fact in Hebrew the pronoun referring to a ship would always be "hī" (literally, "she" in English) which is the feminine pronoun, because the word for ship was grammatically feminine. But I think you are absolutely right, Shulem, that the average Hebrew speaker would not have thought of it as literally a feminine object (those Hebrew speakers out there reading this must surely have marveled, as I have, that in Hebrew "he" is she and "who" is he and "me" is who...someone will get that pun). It would be absurd to translate it as "she" then, and certainly you could not do this consistently without sounding ridiculous: every city in such a translation would be a "she," as would the earth, chariots, many abstract concepts, and in general every other feminine noun in Hebrew.

Earlier I cited an example of a feminine noun being the foreskin of a man's penis. And I referenced how the womb is actually a masculine noun. Clearly, we see there is a difference between mere grammar and usage. Joseph Smith wasn't just "translating" what may be considered mere grammar. His examples tell a much different story. His reading goes far beyond grammar and into subjective usage that I don't think was had among the Jews.

[Physics Guy]

This is one of the fun things about speaking a language that handles genders differently from your native language. It's still a little amusing to me when Germans speaking English refer to machines as "her" and children as "it". No doubt it's just as amusing to Germans that I still often call a computer "es" rather than "er", and the like. I can't help thinking that they're thinking of the computer as a person; they probably can't help thinking that I'm thinking of it as a child.

The funniness persists, in fact, even when one understands why it happens. My German-English bilingual daughter called me over today to laugh with her at the English-language video in which the speaker kept referring to the Antarctic Ocean water he was tasting as "him", along with a lot of other funny mistakes. In German the water would also have been neutral as it is in English, as it happens. It would be an interesting experiment to see whether German-like errors in English, or English-like errors in German, seem less funny to her than mistakes that would be errors in both. I'll mention this to my wife.

[Symmachus]

Earlier I cited an example of a feminine noun being the foreskin of a man's penis. And I referenced how the womb is actually a masculine noun. Clearly, we see there is a difference between mere grammar and usage. Joseph Smith wasn't just "translating" what may be considered mere grammar. His examples tell a much different story. His reading goes far beyond grammar and into subjective usage that I don't think was had among the Jews.

And you are correct. The thing is, this is noticeable in English only because it lacks grammatical gender for nouns. In Hebrew grammar, there is not even a way to express the effect felt by an English speaker in referring to a ship as "she."

[Chap]

I was wondering whether I should attempt something along these lines..

But Symmachus has done it so much better than I could ...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think ancient (600 BC) Jews or ship captains in Israel referred to their vessels using the feminine pronouns of she & her in a literal sense. There is no reason for me to believe that.

The problem here is an over-literal reading of the grammatical terminology "masculine" and "feminine." The use of "she" with ships is not a question of grammar but of usage. As grammatical category, gender only occasionally overlaps with biological gender, and by definition that is only in the case of animate beings in most languages that have masculine/feminine distinction in their nouns. Instead of "masculine" and "feminine," we could use "Category 1" and "Category 2" or use some other scheme. We use "masculine" and "feminine" in grammatical description because of that occasional overlap with biological gender but largely out of tradition; at the head of that tradition were grammarians who were trying to describe their languages to themselves. In trying to classify nouns, they used a very concrete, immediate style of language drawing from their everyday experience (whereas modern people prefer an abstract style and numbers), and so they looked at nouns ending in "a" or whatever and said to themselves, "you know what? All the women I know have names that end in that, so I'm gonna call those 'womanish' nouns." Adjectives modifying them were also "womanish," as were the pronouns. Dr. Steuss is correct about the Hebrew word for ship being feminine, and any pronoun referring to it would also be feminine, as would any adjectives modifying the noun. So, yes, in fact in Hebrew the pronoun referring to a ship would always be "hī" (literally, "she" in English) which is the feminine pronoun, because the word for ship was grammatically feminine. But I think you are absolutely right, Shulem, that the average Hebrew speaker would not have thought of it as literally a feminine object (those Hebrew speakers out there reading this must surely have marveled, as I have, that in Hebrew "he" is she and "who" is he and "me" is who...someone will get that pun). It would be absurd to translate it as "she" then, and certainly you could not do this consistently without sounding ridiculous: every city in such a translation would be a "she," as would the earth, chariots, many abstract concepts, and in general every other feminine noun in Hebrew.

Added to this, the English of Joseph Smith and/or the divine Early Modern English of the Book of Mormon did not have gendered nouns. Grammatical gender has not existed in English nouns for roughly 800 years, depending on the dialect of Early Middle English you are looking at, and even when they did, in the Old English period, the word for "ship" was neuter (although the word for "boat" was variously masculine or feminine), as it still is in German. The modern English use of "she" for ships or other objects is a personfication dating to the eighteenth century, not a reflection of grammatical gender (which English doesn't have, except in pronouns). In other words, it is not a question of something inherent to the language (its grammar) or something that has survived translation from a language with gendered nouns; rather, it is a reflection of how the English language is used (pragmatics), so "she" for "ship" in the Book of Mormon reflects the usage of the translator/composer.

Regarding the question posed about "reformed Egyptian," who knows? We should check Sindarin and Quenya while we're at it. Yet the word for ship in Demotic Egyptian (ḏj) was grammatically masculine, as was that in Late Egyptian (ḏꜣy) that preceded it, although there were other words for water-traveling vessels that were feminine (e.g. ḏꜣt). Interestingly, the English word "barge" ultimately goes back through French, Latin, Greek, and Coptic to the Egyptian word bꜣjr. So there is that for the apologist playpen: another Egyptian connection to the Jaredites alongside "deseret."

Shouldn't we be thinking about Uto-Aztecan though? Unfortunately, I suspect that nouns did not have gender in the Proto-Uto-Aztecan spoken by the Nephites and Lamanites (nouns don't in Classical Nahuatl, Ute, Shoshone, or in Hopi, but I do not know enough about any other U-A languages). As in many languages of Native America (e.g. Algic and Iroquoian languages), animacy vs. inanimacy is the major distinction in nouns, although there also many other oppositional categories that are extremely interesting. So, while the Stubbs thesis would have us believe that Aramaic + Hebrew + Egyptian had effect even on the verbal system, the category of grammatical gender (which all have) had no effect on Proto-Uto-Aztecan, which had noun animacy/inanimacy as well as other noun categories (which Aramaic, Hebrew, and Egyptian do not have).

Oh but perhaps Arabic, which Lehi also must have spoken, had some influence here, since animacy vs. inanimacy is a distinction for noun plurals (noun plurals of inanimate nouns are treated grammatically as feminine singular). And maybe John Robertson could step in to tell us whether nouns in Mayan languages had gender, and whether "ships" were "she." It's not an Uto-Aztecan language but we might find something else to put in the playpen.

[Shulem]

In other words, it is not a question of something inherent to the language (its grammar) or something that has survived translation from a language with gendered nouns; rather, it is a reflection of how the English language is used (pragmatics), so "she" for "ship" in the Book of Mormon reflects the usage of the translator/composer.

Which is exactly my all important point that this so-called "translator" wasn't really translating because he wasn't looking at the reformed hieroglyphic characters on gold plates but had his head buried in a hat and was dictating a STORY. It's nothing more than a long series of stories put together. There was no translation. There was no comparing texts from two languages. There was no studying of hieroglyphics as he did with the Book of Abraham. This was simply a matter of dictating a story with his eyes closed and while resting his face in a hat. Period!

The word "TRANSLATION" does not apply to the Book of Mormon. This is something the Church pushes and has pulled the wool over everyone's eyes (including you and me) simply because Smith said he "translated" the Book of Mormon. But he translated nothing! He made up stories as he went along and dictated those stories to his scribes. Whatever was under that cloth covering so-called plates had nothing to do with anything. The bottom line is that Smith was claiming to restore/reveal what two ancient men were saying, i.e., Alma & Mormon, and clearly there are no grounds in which we can even begin to think that those fictional characters ever said those things. Joseph Smith said those things. He made it all up.

Oh but perhaps Arabic, which Lehi also must have spoken, had some influence here, since animacy vs. inanimacy is a distinction for noun plurals (noun plurals of inanimate nouns are treated grammatically as feminine singular).

There was no Lehi. He's a fictional character made up by Joseph Smith while telling a story with his face buried in a hat. There is no credibility in Smith's story because there is no collaborating evidence to substantiate his story. No ruins or archeological evidence for the cities described in the Book of Mormon. It's all just a story beginning in 600 BC and Smith didn't ever bother to tell his followers where Lehi landed. All those professed visions and ability to see things (seer) and Smith refused to name where Zarahemla and Bountiful are. Why? because he knew people would go looking for the ruins and not find them!

Arabic and Mayan languages or any other language doesn't move the needle at all in favor of Smith. It's over for the Book of Mormon. It is not a translation. It's a story told by Smith who loved to invent and plagiarize.

I do appreciate your input and analysis in language. I appreciate you coming into the thread and disseminating quality work from someone who knows what they are talking about.

[drumdude]

There was no Lehi. He's a fictional character made up by Joseph Smith while telling a story with his face buried in a hat.

If Lehi did exist, the moon is made of cheese.

[Dr Moore]

This thread reminds me of my personal favorite, and heretofore mostly privately held, etymological theory for Liahona -- a clever compound of two English words (Lee and Hone), each with an "ah" sound after.

Lee: the side of a ship or vessel facing away from the wind. A ship driven forth before the wind is sailing leeward.

8. And it came to pass after we had all gone down into the ship, and had taken with us our provisions and things which had been commanded us, we did put forth into the sea and were driven forth before the wind towards the promised land.
9. And after we had been driven forth before the wind for the space of many days, behold, my brethren and the sons of Ishmael and also their wives began to make themselves merry...
...
12. And it came to pass that after they had bound me insomuch that I could not move, the compass, which had been prepared of the Lord, did cease to work.
13. Wherefore, they knew not whither they should steer the ship, insomuch that there arose a great storm, yea, a great and terrible tempest, and we were driven back upon the waters for the space of three days; and they began to be frightened exceedingly lest they should be drowned in the sea...

Hone: to long, or to pine, or wish for. See contemporary dictionaries, or this well-known line by Sancho in Don Quixote, "For shame, Sir, do not give way to sluggishness, but get out of your doleful dumps, and rife. Is this a time to ly honing and groaning a-bed, when we should be in the fields in our shepherd's clothing, as we had resolved?"

1 Ne 18:21-22 "And it came to pass after they had loosed me, behold, I took the compass, and it did work whither I desired it. And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord; and after I had prayed the winds did cease, and the storm did cease, and there was a great calm. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did guide the ship, that we sailed again towards the promised land."

So, in this etymology, the Lee-ah-Hone-ah is a device which, in its last and most vital use, points the righteous user to steer a ship leeward, relative to the Lord's winds, allowing the Lord to blow the ship "before the wind," to what the righteous user's heart desires most (the promised land). Preparatory uses are performed on land (see 1 Ne 16), to find food and get directions to the sea. After its intended use, helping the righteous Lehites steer the ship leeward on the Lord's wind to the place for which they all hone, the Book of Mormon text suggests that the Liahona is not used again.

In this suggested etymology, a few textual clues that I find notable:
1. The ball is mentioned in Mosiah 1:16 (Benjamin gives it to Mosiah). According to the priory of Mosiah, I believe this would have been the first chapter dictated by Joseph after Martin lost the 116 pages. The Liahona was clearly an important named relic in Joseph's mind.
2. The ball is named in Alma 37:38, as a relic which, again, had one primary use: to "bring our fathers, by following its course, to the promised land..."
3. Keeping things straight. Having named the Liahona in Alma, Joseph evidently did not feel a need to name it again while re-dictating 1st and 2nd Nephi. The word Liahona appears once, and only once, in the Book of Mormon (in Alma 37). Maybe he realized, at the end of the project, that naming the Liahona twice in the text might be awkward? Makes me wonder, though. Perhaps the Liahona was named in the original 116 pages?

Or, if you prefer, there is always the faith-promoting, if not incoherent fumbling around, at the Onomasticon project.

[Gadianton]

3. Keeping things straight. Having named the Liahona in Alma, Joseph evidently did not feel a need to name it again while re-dictating 1st and 2nd Nephi. The word Liahona appears once, and only once, in the Book of Mormon (in Alma 37). Maybe he realized, at the end of the project, that naming the Liahona twice in the text might be awkward? Makes me wonder, though. Perhaps the Liahona was named in the original 116 pages?

This Liahona thing isn't something I'd ever thought about or recall encountering before. My first thought and correct me if I'm wrong, I have a pretty terrible memory, but aren't there several ancient "Jaredite" words that get introduced at that time? I don't recall if there's any consistency to the times when the Book of Mormon author introduces ancient words. We've kicked around "neum and sheum" a few times as plot device -- you prime reader intuition with things they know and then bring out the foreign items at the end of the list. a different kind of example might be making things sound more ancient by referring to the thing by it's name in the ancient tongue? If that's the case, then since it was an anomalous device for Nephi then they wouldn't know its name without revealing its mysterious ancient origin.

Of course, the translator of the plates could have done the scholarly thing and noted that it was the Liahona as an aside. But as a novel, it makes more sense to let the reader put 2+2 together that this is the very special magical object spoken of by future peoples uncovering the secrets of a very ancient past.

[Shulem]

Thanks everyone for your comments and input. This has been an interesting thread and the implications I've proposed can be supported and excused depending on how you look at things. So, at this point, I'll just hang it up and wait for Bokovoy to come in and state his opinion. Let's see if he is willing to give Smith a pass and justify this kind of terminology in the Book of Mormon which heavily imitates the Jewish scriptures via the 1611 KJV. Let's see what Bokovoy has to say when he is ready to come and say it.

In the meantime, "wither did that poor ship go?" Right into the mouth of the Susquehanna River and into the land northward. Yeah, baby! That's exactly what Smith was thinking while looking at his American map.

DAVID BOKOVOY, where the hell are you? This is a dereliction of duty!

Golly, Shulem. I must have forgot.

Get ur ass into this thread, David, and report to duty.

Attention!

[Moksha]

In the meantime, "wither did that poor ship go?" Right into the mouth of the Susquehanna River and into the land northward. Yeah, baby! That's exactly what Smith was thinking while looking at his American map.

Shulem, do you think they arrived at Otsego Lake? How far could the Susquehanna River be navigated?