Comments on: From the Archives: “A Sample of Pure Language,” Part II (The Interpretations) http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:20:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Chris Smith http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/comment-page-1/#comment-57554 Chris Smith Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:20:34 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/?p=3143#comment-57554 Jonathan, Nobody, I think, is suggesting that W. W. Phelps added the characters on his own authority. Quite to the contrary, I think that JS almost certainly directed the effort. The specimen was copied into Phelps's letter during the timeframe when Smith, Phelps, and Cowdery were going through the manuscript revelation books and making revisions and doing typesetting for the 1835 D&C. I suspect that the "specimen" was a revision of the "sample", and was first produced during this period. Furthermore, the conceptual similarity between the May, 1835 "specimen" and the July, 1835 Egyptian Alphabet accords very well with their apparent temporal proximity. In the letter that contains the specimen, Phelps promises to "give you [that is, his wife Sally] whatever new thing comes to hand for you know I always love to gratify \you/ with choice things from the Lord." This implies that the things Phelps forwarded in this letter-- the specimen and the first six forms of the D&C-- were both "new" and "from the Lord" (i.e. from Joseph Smith). Anyway, these are a few of the reasons I suspect an 1835 date for the specimen. You're of course correct that it's very difficult to prove a negative. But in addition to the points I made above, it should be noted that absence of evidence is itself a kind of evidence (the popular proverb to the contrary notwithstanding). Unless strong reasons can be given for dating the specimen several years prior to its appearance in the historical record, I think that the 1835 date will have to stand as the most probable one. You can see an image of the specimen <a href="http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2009/10/specimen-of-some-of-pure-language.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Jonathan,

Nobody, I think, is suggesting that W. W. Phelps added the characters on his own authority. Quite to the contrary, I think that JS almost certainly directed the effort. The specimen was copied into Phelps’s letter during the timeframe when Smith, Phelps, and Cowdery were going through the manuscript revelation books and making revisions and doing typesetting for the 1835 D&C. I suspect that the “specimen” was a revision of the “sample”, and was first produced during this period. Furthermore, the conceptual similarity between the May, 1835 “specimen” and the July, 1835 Egyptian Alphabet accords very well with their apparent temporal proximity.

In the letter that contains the specimen, Phelps promises to “give you [that is, his wife Sally] whatever new thing comes to hand for you know I always love to gratify \you/ with choice things from the Lord.” This implies that the things Phelps forwarded in this letter– the specimen and the first six forms of the D&C– were both “new” and “from the Lord” (i.e. from Joseph Smith).

Anyway, these are a few of the reasons I suspect an 1835 date for the specimen. You’re of course correct that it’s very difficult to prove a negative. But in addition to the points I made above, it should be noted that absence of evidence is itself a kind of evidence (the popular proverb to the contrary notwithstanding). Unless strong reasons can be given for dating the specimen several years prior to its appearance in the historical record, I think that the 1835 date will have to stand as the most probable one.

You can see an image of the specimen here.

]]> By: Jonathan Green http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/comment-page-1/#comment-57511 Jonathan Green Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:32:42 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/?p=3143#comment-57511 Chris and Sam, my speculation that a prior version of the document contained a graphic element (for example, hieroglyphs) remains, of course, speculative. That being said, a graphic element would resolve some of the document's apparent strangeness, and the 1835 version provides evidence that transmission along with hieroglyphs did in fact take place. Whether those glyphs were part of the original or a later addition is quite another question, of course, but the three-year difference in age of the manuscript witnesses is pretty weak evidence that the 1832 'Sample' more accurately reflects the original. So one has to explain either why the copyist omitted the hieroglyphs from the revelation book, or why W.W. Phelps would add them by his own authority. Personally, I find it somewhat more likely that the hieroglyphs were in the original (omitting images during copying is hardly unknown). Is W.W. Phelps's letter published anywhere? Chris and Sam, my speculation that a prior version of the document contained a graphic element (for example, hieroglyphs) remains, of course, speculative. That being said, a graphic element would resolve some of the document’s apparent strangeness, and the 1835 version provides evidence that transmission along with hieroglyphs did in fact take place. Whether those glyphs were part of the original or a later addition is quite another question, of course, but the three-year difference in age of the manuscript witnesses is pretty weak evidence that the 1832 ‘Sample’ more accurately reflects the original. So one has to explain either why the copyist omitted the hieroglyphs from the revelation book, or why W.W. Phelps would add them by his own authority. Personally, I find it somewhat more likely that the hieroglyphs were in the original (omitting images during copying is hardly unknown). Is W.W. Phelps’s letter published anywhere?

]]> By: Travis http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/comment-page-1/#comment-57162 Travis Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:35:50 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/?p=3143#comment-57162 Joe Sampson points out that both O. Pratt's reference to "unfolding" and the structure of the revelation are reminiscent of kabalistic practice. Joe Sampson points out that both O. Pratt’s reference to “unfolding” and the structure of the revelation are reminiscent of kabalistic practice.

]]> By: smb http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/comment-page-1/#comment-56739 smb Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:19:17 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/?p=3143#comment-56739 Jonathan, I concur with Chris apropros timing of association with glyphs on the basis of the current evidence--the 1832 revelation did not seem to have specific glyphs in mind. Jonathan, I concur with Chris apropros timing of association with glyphs on the basis of the current evidence–the 1832 revelation did not seem to have specific glyphs in mind.

]]> By: Chris Smith http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/comment-page-1/#comment-56731 Chris Smith Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:15:35 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/?p=3143#comment-56731 Hey Jonathan, Your suggestion is interesting, but I don't think I agree with it. The "specimen" version is not known until late May of 1835. I am inclined to think that that is when it was created, and that there were no characters associated with the 1832 version. When the Sample says "This signifies...", I think it's referring back to the English word "man" in the question just asked. The phrasing is odd, it's true, but the referent seems pretty clear from the context. Peace, -Chris Hey Jonathan,

Your suggestion is interesting, but I don’t think I agree with it. The “specimen” version is not known until late May of 1835. I am inclined to think that that is when it was created, and that there were no characters associated with the 1832 version. When the Sample says “This signifies…”, I think it’s referring back to the English word “man” in the question just asked. The phrasing is odd, it’s true, but the referent seems pretty clear from the context.

Peace,

-Chris

]]> By: Jonathan Green http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/comment-page-1/#comment-56728 Jonathan Green Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:52:26 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/?p=3143#comment-56728 Chris, that's very interesting that there's another version, and that it includes hieroglyphs. That's what I was guessing might have been the case in my comment above, and it's nice to see that guess backed up by some actual evidence. Chris, that’s very interesting that there’s another version, and that it includes hieroglyphs. That’s what I was guessing might have been the case in my comment above, and it’s nice to see that guess backed up by some actual evidence.

]]> By: Chris Smith http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/comment-page-1/#comment-56669 Chris Smith Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:32:03 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/?p=3143#comment-56669 I've mostly avoided the boards lately for precisely that reason: I just don't have time to deal with all the empty vitriol, and I have yet to see a board that's genuinely well-moderated. But I still have a fondness for the boards for the simple reason that they provide an opportunity for more personal connection with other people than peer-reviewed journals or even blogs can ever really offer. It's true that some of my sharpest and most personal disagreements with people have been on the boards, but on the other hand I have also made some very close and knowledgeable friends there. I have had two very promising collaborative research projects emerge from relationships and discussions at MADB. So the boards are a wonderful networking tool, even if the cost in time and personal frustration is ultimately pretty steep. I’ve mostly avoided the boards lately for precisely that reason: I just don’t have time to deal with all the empty vitriol, and I have yet to see a board that’s genuinely well-moderated. But I still have a fondness for the boards for the simple reason that they provide an opportunity for more personal connection with other people than peer-reviewed journals or even blogs can ever really offer. It’s true that some of my sharpest and most personal disagreements with people have been on the boards, but on the other hand I have also made some very close and knowledgeable friends there. I have had two very promising collaborative research projects emerge from relationships and discussions at MADB. So the boards are a wonderful networking tool, even if the cost in time and personal frustration is ultimately pretty steep.

]]> By: smb http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/comment-page-1/#comment-56650 smb Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:34:05 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/?p=3143#comment-56650 Chris, interacting with critics is useful--a readers digest version should include both sides. The incoherent vitriol is the problem--it's a taxing wade-through when you're busy. You should be able to get a pdf from the journal/editors. Chris, interacting with critics is useful–a readers digest version should include both sides. The incoherent vitriol is the problem–it’s a taxing wade-through when you’re busy.

You should be able to get a pdf from the journal/editors.

]]> By: Chris Smith http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/comment-page-1/#comment-56643 Chris Smith Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:11:08 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/?p=3143#comment-56643 Hey Sam, Yes, having meaningful conversations on message boards generally requires a lot of filtering. Believe it or not, it's actually useful for me to engage people who stridently oppose my views, because they force me to think very deeply about things, and to systematically defend every aspect of my argument no matter how self-evident it seems to me. There <i>were</i> good insights that came out of that conversation, but I will probably have to publish a reader's digest version at some later date before they can be much use to anyone else! I'll send you a copy of my article, but it will be in Word rather than PDF. I don't have a scanned copy at present. Peace, -Chris Hey Sam,

Yes, having meaningful conversations on message boards generally requires a lot of filtering. Believe it or not, it’s actually useful for me to engage people who stridently oppose my views, because they force me to think very deeply about things, and to systematically defend every aspect of my argument no matter how self-evident it seems to me. There were good insights that came out of that conversation, but I will probably have to publish a reader’s digest version at some later date before they can be much use to anyone else!

I’ll send you a copy of my article, but it will be in Word rather than PDF. I don’t have a scanned copy at present.

Peace,

-Chris

]]> By: smb http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-ii-the-interpretations/comment-page-1/#comment-56618 smb Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:23:27 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/?p=3143#comment-56618 Chris, that is one bizarre bulletin board conversation--too bad there isn't a filter that allows one to review useful content only. I kept waiting for someone to start kick-boxing. Can you email me a PDF of your published article? I agree that the Phelps letter is important for the reception history of the ca. 1832 revelation and that the Egyptian project deserves to be situated in Smith's quest for pure language. I'd be cautious about being too reductionistic in describing the complex nature of collaborative authorship in Smith's linguistic writings as well as the development of his mechanistic approaches to translation. A minor point, in response to the bulletin board conversation, is that my interpretation does not require any specific temporal relationship among the components of the Egyptian project. I took no stand on the question of whether BoA comes before, after, or concurrent with the formally linguistic elements of the project. Chris, that is one bizarre bulletin board conversation–too bad there isn’t a filter that allows one to review useful content only. I kept waiting for someone to start kick-boxing.

Can you email me a PDF of your published article?
I agree that the Phelps letter is important for the reception history of the ca. 1832 revelation and that the Egyptian project deserves to be situated in Smith’s quest for pure language. I’d be cautious about being too reductionistic in describing the complex nature of collaborative authorship in Smith’s linguistic writings as well as the development of his mechanistic approaches to translation.

A minor point, in response to the bulletin board conversation, is that my interpretation does not require any specific temporal relationship among the components of the Egyptian project. I took no stand on the question of whether BoA comes before, after, or concurrent with the formally linguistic elements of the project.

]]>