All About Mormons

Brief Introduction

As a pre-mission teenager studying at Brigham Young University, I took an interesting writing class. It has been satisfying to look over some of the papers I wrote for that class and to see how my understanding and writing style have progressed. While this text certainly doesn’t represent my best work, I thought I’d include it here just for fun.

Linguistic Change among the Nephites

When Lehi and his sons traveled to the New World, they brought with them the language of the Old: Biblical Hebrew. As with any group, the Nephite’s words changed slowly over time as some fell out of use and others took on new meanings and pronunciations. The evolution of Biblical Hebrew among the Nephites may seem insignificant, but, in reality, it strongly supports the Prophet Joseph’s claim that he could translate. It seems very unlikely that Joseph, who some contend wrote the Book of Mormon, intentionally caused the Hebrew in that book to change over time; indeed, it is doubtful if Joseph was even familiar with Hebrew at the time of the translation. Far more probable is the argument that the evidence for linguistic change was transcribed without his knowledge as he translated the text. This essay’s purpose is twofold: to show that Hebrew did change among the Nephites and to propose possible connections between modern-day Native American languages and ancient Hebrew, suggesting that that evolution continued even after the Nephites’ fall.

In 1 Nephi 3:19 Nephi says that “it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers” (Book of Mormon). Are we to assume, then, that the records somehow prevented linguistic change among the Nephites? Such an assumption is unsound for several reasons. First, it is doubtful that all the people had access to the records all the time. Nephite civilization was advanced, but they likely lacked the technology needed to mass distribute information and, without that capacity, the language-preserving power of the plates could not have prevented linguistic change among the common people. Secondly, at times of Nephite apostasy it seems certain that the common man wasn’t reading the brass plates; thus, the language-preserving power of the plates would have been ineffective and the people would have been subject to linguistic change anyway. Thirdly, it is doubtful that the existence of a “record,” or any other text, would prevent linguistic change even if it were available. The Canterbury Tales, for example, did not prevent the transformation of English. Thus the idea of linguistic change among the Nephites seems not only reasonable but probable.

There is no question that languages change; Latin developed into French, Romanian, and Italian, and our current form of English is very different from the Old English of yesteryear. While it seems unlikely that Hebrew is somehow immutable, is it sensible to assume that Hebrew changed among the Nephites? In particular, is there evidence for such a change? Furthermore, if linguistic change did occur among the Nephites, how could the modern scholar identify some of those changes? The original text is unavailable, and, even if found, it was written in Reformed Egyptian, not Hebrew.

Most words in the Book of Mormon are translations and so cannot lead the scholar to any conclusions about how Hebrew might have changed among the Nephites, but proper names, those few words which, though transliterated into the Latin alphabet, have not been translated, are the keys to identifying linguistic change among the Nephites, for they alone express the sounds of the Nephite language. They form the foundationon upon which an arguement for linguistic change can be built.

In Hebrew, words are often formed from a combination of other words; for example, Beyth ‘El (Bethel) is a combination of the words Bayith (house) and ‘Eyl (God) (LDS). The Nephites would have formed proper names in a similar manner, creating composite words out of other Hebrew terms and phrases.

In particular, the three consonants m, l, k appear in that order in many Book of Mormon proper names, suggesting that those names might be related. Though the conclusions are highly speculative, the interested student can eliminate superlative letters and guess at what the “root” of the m-l-k combination might be.

(Book of Mormon)

The word “mulek,” which appears to be the original form of the word, means “little king” in Biblical Hebrew (Wright) and is derived from “melek,” meaning “king.” Note that, with the exception of the “mulek” form in 80 B.C., “melek” seems to undergo gradual changes from “mulek” to “malach” to “mlici.” Many of the smaller changes may be the result of English transliteration and might not represent actual changes in pronunciation, but it does seems likely that the word “mulek” was pronounced differently than the word “mlici,” suggesting that “melek” did evolve over time among the Nephite peoples.

The Nephite use of the yaw’ hoo suffix is another fine example. “Yaw’ hoo” is often found at the end of Hebrew names, and even modern Hebrew uses the convention (i.e. Benjamin Netanyahu). In English, the “Yaw’-hoo” extension is typically translated as “-iah” or “-jah,” as in Isaiah and Elijah. The fact that many Book of Mormon names have a similar extension, “-hah,” suggests that “-hah” may be another form of “-iah” or “-jah,” perhaps a uniquely Nephite construct that developed over time. A look at the time line of the “-iah” and “-hah” extensions supports such a theory.

Clearly the Nephites used “-iah” at the beginning of their history, as is evident by the names Sariah, Amalickiah, and Mosiah. This type of extension seems to have fallen out of use around 100 B.C., when the “-hah” suffix became more prevalent, save for a few instances in which individuals were named after Old Testament prophets or kings. Some might reasonably argue that “-hah” is simply another English transliteration of “Yaw’-hoo” and does not represent an actual phonetic change. After all, “Yaw’-hoo” is transliterated as both “-iah” and “-jah” in the Old Testament despite the fact that both extensions are pronounced the same in Hebrew. While this argument appears logical on the surface, the fact that “-hah” began to be used at approximately the time “-iah” fell out of use suggests that some actual change did take place.

As illustrated by the chart below, the Hebrew word “selem,” meaning “peace,” is another fine example of linguistic change. By 120 B.C., 480 years after Lehi first set foot on the New World, “selem” had changed to “shilom.” A “b” sound, introduced into the word around 80 B.C., seems to have remained in usage until well into the fourth century. Recall that the changes in “melek” maintained the m-l-k consonant “signature.” In contrast, the changes in “salem” lack a clear-cut identifiable pattern. The “s”/”sh” and “m”/”n” sounds, however, are both very similar, so the conclusion that the words listed above are still related to “selem” even though they lack an exact unifying pattern is reasonable. Despite such a justification, however, the evolution of “selem” is definitely not as clear-cut as “melek.” While a connection seems likely, further research is necessary.

(Book of Mormon)³

To understand how the Hebrew language changed after the Nephites’ fall we must first consider the demographics of pre-Columbian America. The primary question is this: was Lehi’s party the only people God lead to the Americas? The answer is quite possibly no. The Intuit appear very Asian, and most of the indigenous American languages have few similarities to Hebrew. If the “Lehites” were an isolated group, one would expect that their Hebrew language, in its modified, uniquely American form, would have been assimilated into the langueages of surrounding cultures. We shouldn’t expect Native American languages to sound particularly Hebrew because a modified form of Hebrew was only one of many linguistic influences. Nevertheless, the idea that some elements of Hebrew are present in Native American languages is reasonable.

Evidence of Hebrew’s influence upon the Native American languages is both convincing and abundant⁴; Brian Darrel Stubbs is one of many scholars who has looked into possible connections. He notes many similarities between Hebrew and Native American languages, particularly those of the Uto-Aztecan family. Some of his findings are summarized in the chart below.

(chart adapted from Stubbs 6-10)⁵

Thomas W. Brookbank also suggested other possible connections. He marvels at the word “Yawuhnneyuh,” which, in the Tuscarora language, is the name for God. The interested student doesn’t need a degree in historical linguistics to be astonished at the similarities that title bears to the Hebrew “Yahweh,” the name of Jehovah (6).

Hebrew likely changed as the Nephite civilization evolved in the New World and continued to evolve even after its destruction, though Hebrew is probably not the only influence upon Native American languages. As aforementioned, such linguistic change strongly supports Joseph’s claims at translation. Any idea that Joseph intentionally “planned” to have the languages of his “fictitious” Nephites change in order to convince the skeptic that he was not the genius behind the Book of Mormon seems ludicrous. It is far more likely that Joseph was unaware of the linguistic changes and translated the text without considering historical linguistics. There are, no doubt, numerous other examples of linguistic change in the Book of Mormon, and further research into this fascinating field is needed in order to fully appreciate the complexity of the Lehite language and its evolution.

Works Cited

LDS Collectors Library ’97. Infobasis. Greek and Hebrew Lexicon. Provo, Utah. 1997.

Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1981.

Brookbank, Thomas W. A Study in Hebrew and Indian Languages. Salt Lake City: Salt Lake Efficiency Printing Co., 1926.

Byington, Cyrus. Swanton, John R., and Halbert, Henry S., ed. “Minko.” A dictionary of the Choctaw Language. 1915.

Graham, Ray. Personal Correspondence. March 1998.

Stubbs, Brian Darrel. “Looking Over vs. Overlooking Native American Languages: Let’s Void the Void.” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/1. (1996): Online. http://www.farmsresearch.com/jbms/jbmsv5_1/stubbs.htm. 8 October 1998.

Wright, H. Curtis. “Mulek.” Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992. Volume Two.

Footnotes

1. Though the word “mulon” doesn’t contain a “k,” it still seems likely that it is related to “melek.” This particular example is not, however, as strong as the others.

2. Though the word “shemnon” doesn’t contain a “l,” it still seems possible that it is related to “selem.” This particular example is not, however, as strong as the others.

3. The first two examples (“melek” and “Yaw’-hoo”) were ideas the author produced on his own. In order to generate more examples, he wrote a computer program that performed a very simple linguistic analysis on all of the Book of Mormon proper names. From this analysis that he discovered the “salem” connection. The computer also suggested many other lingusitic relationships not mentioned in this essay. Further research is needed.

4. The author took a very unscientific sampling of some Native American languages in an attempt to find connections with the Hebrew word “melek” mentioned earlier. The Choctaw word “minko” (Byington) and the Guarani word “mboruvicha” (Graham), which mean “king” and “chief,” respectively, may be related to the Hebrew “melek,” which means king.

5. The similarity between the Hebrew “ya-)amîn” and the Uzo-Aztecan “yawamin” is particularly impressive. If left to chance, the probability that two words as lengthy as these would have the same consonant/vowel order is approximately one in 2,592,000 (Stubbs 6-10).