And it came to pass.
Kigye 888
Mormon and among Book of Mormon peoples is the work of Brian D.
Stubbs, one of the few linguists working with Uto-Aztecan languages
(covering the US Southwest down to southern Mexico). He wrote a ground-
breaking article, "Looking Over vs. Overlooking Native American
Languages: Let's Void the Void," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,
Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 1-49 (a PDF version is also
available), which makes serious, systematic comparisons of ancient
Hebrew words and forms to those of Uto-Aztecan languages. Stubbs is
among a small handful of people who know both Semitic languages and
Uto-Aztecan languages. Most linguists dealing with the Book of Mormon
have approached it with backgrounds rich in Semitic languages but
lacking in New World languages. Stubbs' pioneering work opens the door
for further studies, pointing to some interesting possibilities.
Among his tentative conclusions, Stubbs finds that Uto-Aztecan "as a
language family exhibits more similarities with Hebrew than could be
attributed to coincidence; nevertheless, that Hebrew element is
obviously mixed with other language elements very different from
Hebrew." While no UA [Uto-Aztecan] language shows the same level of
derivation from Hebrew as Spanish does from Latin, there are still
many traces of similarity suggesting some degree of contact or
derivation. Over 1,000 similarities have been derived, enough to merit
further investigation. Examples of similarities include the plural
suffix "-im" in Northwest Semitic (the branch to which Hebrew
belongs), and "-ima" in many UA languages; the passive prefix "ni-" in
Northwest Semitic and the prefix "na-" in UA; Northwest Semitic
"yasab" as the perfect form of the verb to sit or to dwell, compared
to "yasipa" in UA; "adam" meaning man in Hebrew compared to "otam" in
UA; Hebrew "katpa" for shoulder, compared to "kotpa" in UA; ya-'amin
for "he believes" in Hebrew compared to "yawamin" in a northern UA
language; etc. Stubbs' article delves into 100 of the over 1,000 areas
of similarity. It is technical but worth the read.
In addition to examining Uto-Aztecan languages, Stubbs has another
worthwhile article from the perspective of a linguist in "A Lengthier
Treatment of Length," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 5, No.
2, 1996, pp. 82-97 (also available as a PDF file). He responds to
Edward Ashment's attack on the Book of Mormon which claims the long,
awkward sentences found in so many Book of Mormon verses are much
different than the short, concise sentences found in the Old
Testament, supposedly showing that the Book of Mormon was not derived
from Hebrew. Stubbs shows that the short sentences alleged to be
characteristic of Biblical Hebrew may be characteristic of the King
James translation of the Old Testament, but are not characteristic of
the actual Hebrew. In fact, numerous sentence structures in the Book
of Mormon show much more in common with genuine Hebraic sentences than
with the English of the King James Bible or with the English of Joseph
Smith's day.
Many Book of Mormon verses have series of verbals introducing clauses,
such as: "Zeniff . . . he being over-zealous, . . . therefore being
deceived by . . . King Laman, who having entered into a treaty . . .
and having yielded up [various cities], . . . ." (Mosiah 7:21-22).
This type of structure is an ideal way of translating the typical
Hebrew hal-clause (or circumstantial clause), which Stubbs discusses
in detail. Many English sentences in the Book of Mormon that an
English editor would tear apart are perfectly acceptable Hebrew
structures, appearing to be fairly literal translations. The King
James translation loses much of the literal flavor of such passages,
but they are present in the original Hebrew. Thus, we have the
interesting situation of the Book of Mormon being more Hebraic in its
use of complex sentences that the King James Bible--which not only
strengthens the claim the Book of Mormon was derived from a Semitic
text, but further undermines the long untenable claim that the Book of
Mormon can be explained away as a derivative of the King James text.
The complex sentence structures of the Book of Mormon not only
correspond with those of Hebrew, Arabic, and Egyptian, but also
resonate with the structures of many Native American languages. Stubbs
concludes:
In light of patterns inherent to Hebrew, Arabic, Egyptian, and
many Native American languages, the copious presence of certain long,
awkward structures in the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, speaks much
more for the text's authenticity than would a lack. The lengths of
awkward English might be deemed by some as poor grammar or weakness in
writing (Ether 12:23-26,40); but as a linguist and student of Semitic
and Native American languages, I find these lengthy structures to be
quite intriguing, significant, and reassuring."