Friday, July 3, 2020

Stanford Carmack on Third person singular verb forms in {-s} and Double Negations in the Book of Mormon

In his essay Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles, Stanford Carmack discusses some purported grammatical errors in the Book of Mormon, showing that they fit rather well with Old English, such as the following:

 

Third person singular verb forms in {-s}

 

The use of third person singular {-s} forms is included as an example of bad grammar, since this variation has been edited out of the King James Bible and people tend to think that the scriptural {-s} forms of the Book of Mormon are errors, cases of Joseph failing to measure up to a biblical standard.

 

Third person singular (3sg) verb forms ending in {-s} (the other form, historically) eventually look over from 3sg {-th} forms (the southern form, historically) (see Barber, Early Modern English, 166). Nearby variation in the written record began to be prevalent in the late 16th century. The 1568 Bishops’ Bible has an example with the verb make (shown immediately below), and even the King James Bible originally had a few examples, such as the one below with the verb take:

 

1568, Bishops’ Bible [A10708]

What imagine ye against the Lord? he makes an utter destruction:
ye shall not be troubled twice. [Nahum 1:9; page image 1037]

 

Two verses earlier, the 3sg verb form knoweth is used, so there is nearby variation. The King James Bible has a future tense here: “he will make an utter end.”

 

1611, King James Bible

every man that takes it up, will shake his hand. [Ecclesiasticus 22:2]

 

Instead of 2sg takes, the Bishops’ Bible employs sgh toucheth.

 

Here is an example of nearby {-s} ~ {-th} variation, which was eventually edited to be {-th} consistently:

 

1611, King James Bible

He sticks not to spend his life with his wife,
and remembereth neither father nor mother nor country. [1 Esdras 4:21]

 

The Book of Mormon has more than a dozen examples of nearby 3sg inflectional variation with main verbs, as in these two examples:

 

1 Nephi preface

The Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem
because he prophesieth unto the people concerning their iniquity.

 

Nephi taketh his brethren and returns to the land of Jerusalem
after the record of the Jews.

 

This same nearby variation is attested in the 17th-century textual record. EEBO1 has one instance of warns and prophesieth occurring in the same paragraph (1677, A42781), and there are 11 distinct cases of the verbs taketh and returns occurring within 20 words of each other (dating between 1579 and 1700), as in these two examples:

 

1652, Alexander Ross [1591-1654] The history of the world [A57652]

he taketh divers towns and returns to Spain; [page image 762]

 

1679, Robert Barclay [1648-1690] Apology for the true Christian divinity [A30896]

To all this he returns no answer, which taketh up
six pages in my apology, [page 17]

 

Interestingly, Carmack also provides some instances of a double negation in OED not resulting on a negative but instead, a positive, meaning, such as the 1560 Geneva Bible:

 

When the jaws shall scarce open and not be able to chew no more. (Ecc 12:4)

 

Therefore he feared him, and would not see his face no more. (1 Macc 7:30)

 

That our oxen may be strong to labor: that there be none invasion nor going out nor no crying in our streets. (Psa 144:14)

 

Other examples come from Tyndale’s 1530 translation:

 

For the Holy Ghost is no doom God [‘God of judgment’] or no God that goeth a mumming. [‘who disguises himself’] (Leviticus, prologue)

 

And the 1609 Douay:

 

We attribute no more nor less to Christ, nor to our lady, by the one reading than by the other. (annotation to Genesis 3:15)

 

This should be compared with the idiomatic use of “forbiddeth to abstain” in D&C 49:18. On this, see:

 

Loren Blake Spendlove, Whoso Forbiddeth to Abstain from Meats

 

(BTW: I am, at the time of writing, on the fence if Skousen and Carmack are correct that the Book of Mormon was translated into Old English. Functionally, I hold to a tighter model of Book of Mormon translation than most other Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists [though Ben McGuire and a few others are in the "tight" camp, too]. I do think there is something to Skousen and Carmack's work and hope to study it in more detail to come to a firm conclusion one way or another--notwithstanding, I present the above as I think it is interesting at the very least).