sign in sign up
<<
Home , Hebrew language, Nahuatl, Semitic languages, Zuni language

Journal of Book of Mormon Studies

Volume 9 Number 2 9

7-31-2000

Was There in Ancient America? An Interview with Brian Stubbs

Brian Stubbs

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Stubbs, Brian (2000) "Was There in Ancient America? An Interview with Brian Stubbs," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Vol. 9 : No. 2 , Article 9. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol9/iss2/9

This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Title Was There Hebrew Language in Ancient America? An Interview with Brian Stubbs

Author(s) Brian Stubbs and John L. Sorenson

Reference Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9/2 (2000): 54–63, 83.

ISSN 1065-9366 (print), 2168-3158 (online)

Abstract In an interview with John L. Sorenson, linguist Brian Stubbs discusses the evidence has used to establish that at least one in is related to Semitic . Stubbs explains how his studies of Near Eastern languages, coupled with his studies of Uto-Aztecan, helped him find related word pairs in the two language families. The evidence for a link between Uto-Aztecan and , or even Egyptian or , is still tentative, although the evidence includes all the standard requirements of comparative or historical linguistic research: sound correspondences or con- sistent sound shifts, morphological correspondences, and a substantial lexicon consisting of as many as 1,000 words that exemplify those correspondences. Was There Hebrew Language in Ancient America? An Interview with Brian Stubbs

A long-standing question of interest for students of the Book of Mormon is whether traces of Semitic or are preserved in New World languages. The following observations on this complex question are by Brian Stubbs, a specialist in Near Eastern and Native languages who was interviewed by JBMS editor John L. Sorenson.

How did you come to study the question of the nated much of continental have nearly disap- connection between American and Near Eastern peared, except in some surviving in other languages? European languages, even though Celtic ancestry and genes would be well represented in the mix that con- Serving a Navajo-speaking mission sparked my stitutes western European peoples today. So I did not interest in Native American origins and languages. assume anything in particular, but surmised that In light of the Book of Mormon, I began studying some Amerindian might be recognizable as Near Eastern languages, in addition to briefer looks partly descended from or influenced by Near Eastern at some in East Asia and scores of Native American elements in fragmented, mixed, or diluted forms. languages throughout North and South America. Language similarities between the and the If Book of Mormon people spoke and wrote in a did not seem obvious, though I did find language related to Hebrew or Egyptian, where some language families that offered promising leads. would you look for the descendants of those people? I later earned an .A. from the University of Utah in linguistics. That school had one of the strongest I began the search without any preconceived programs in the nation for Uto-Aztecan [hereafter notion of most likely places, but looked at dozens of UA] studies when Professors Wick Miller and Ray language families from to Tierra del Fuego. Freeze were there. UA was one of the language fami- The Book of Mormon describes populous peoples lies in which I had noted what looked like possible inhabiting numerous cities. Wherever the Nephites Near Eastern ties. As I learned linguistic method­ were centered, they would likely have exerted impor- ology and became better acquainted with both Near tant influence on surrounding communities. I also Eastern languages and UA linguistics, additional kept in mind that diffusions and offshoots into parallels emerged. remote or less populated areas sometimes allow - ter preservation of a language than might be allowed Your study has concentrated on the UA languages, by the heavier modification that can occur in highly but at the same you have been studying lan- populated areas. An example is Icelandic, which guages of the , including Hebrew, because of its isolation preserved Old Norse better Arabic, and Egyptian. Did you begin by assuming than modern Norwegian did. In any case, there that these Old World and New World language ought to be surviving indications of a former high groups are related to each other? level of civilization in the languages spoken by later peoples. Most of my research has focused on the The Book of Mormon certainly made me curi- languages in the family called Uto-Aztecan [see map ous to know whether traces or evidences of Near on next page], for I have discovered that these lan- Eastern languages might be discernible among New guages contain data that show viable linguistic evi- World languages. On the other hand, I was also dence of Hebrew/Near Eastern influences. Yet, as I aware of the possibility that all such evidence could look into other languages, I am increasingly convinced have been obliterated. For example, outside of the that Semitic influence has affected and permeated British Isles, the Celtic languages that once domi­ many groups besides UA speech communities.

54 VOLUME 9, NUMBER 2, 2000 Huichol, which form the Corachol branch. The vari- ous or Aztecan dialects in central constitute the southernmost branch of UA.

How does a linguist decide if two languages are related?

Any two languages can have a few similar words by pure chance. What is called the is the linguist’s tool for eliminating chance similarities and determining with confidence whether two languages are historically—that is, genetically— related. This method consists of testing for three cri- teria. First, consistent sound correspondences must be established, for linguists have found that sounds change in consistent patterns in related languages; for example, German tag and English day are (related words), as well as German tür and English door. So one rule about sound change in this case is that German initial t corresponds to English initial .1 Some general rules of sound change that occur in family after family help the linguist feel more confi- dent about reconstructing original forms from the descendant words or cognates, although a certain amount of guesswork is always involved. Uto-Aztecan Languages Second, related languages show parallels in spe- cific structures of and , that is, Our readers may be generally familiar with the in rules that govern sentence and word formation.2 Semitic language family, which includes Arabic Third, a sizable lexicon (vocabulary list) should and Hebrew. But please describe the Uto-Aztecan demonstrate these sound correspondences and family better. grammatical parallels. When consistent parallels of these sorts are Uto-Aztecan is a family of about 30 languages that extensively demonstrated, we can be confident that linguists have demonstrated to be related because they there was a sister-sister connection between the two descended from a common parent language. The par- tongues at some earlier time. ent is now referred to as Proto-Uto-Aztecan (PUA), Divisions or branches within a family can be much like Latin is the common parent language of identified when a subset of languages show shared Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian. Two broad innovations that are independent of other branches internal groupings are Northern and Southern UA, in the language family. When enough parallels have each containing four branches. In the north, Hopi in been demonstrated, a family tree can be drawn. How­ and Tubatulabal in are single-lan- ever, the parallels are not necessarily obvious. But the guage branches; the other two northern branches are similarities will prove systematic, and language fea- Takic, in southern California, and Numic, which tures that seem different on the surface may, in fact, spread from southern California throughout the be found to display compelling similarities. Great Basin and includes the Ute and Paiute lan- guages in Utah. Southern UA includes (from north to How many similarities are necessary to prove a south) the Tepiman branch, consisting of Pima and genetic connection between languages? Papago or ’odham in Arizona and others in Mexico. The Sonoran branch is spread along the coast and It would be nice if the large number of parallels mountains of western Mexico, as are Cora and typical of Latin’s descendant tongues was the rule, as

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 55 most of the vocabulary of Spanish, Portuguese, linguistics, which deals with relationships between French, and Italian comes from Latin. However, languages. Third, of the few active historical lin- most linguistic relationships are not as obvious as guists in the world, most concentrate on a single those in the . When two lan- language family or area; very few acquire sufficient guages share more than 10 percent of their lexicon, familiarity with language families on different conti- and the parallel words show systematic sound corre- nents to be in a position to undertake interhemi- spondences, that pair of tongues should catch a lin- spheric research. guist’s attention as serious contenders to have descended from a common ancestral language. Is it a reasonable scientific hypothesis, then, to posit the connection you are investigating? Some people believe that linguists have already shown that some American Indian languages are Yes—when the evidence becomes strong enough. derived from Hebrew. Is that so? Have linguists Science requires that we go where the facts take us. already done a of the kind of research you are Two hundred years ago, it was shocking for the aver- talking about? age person to be told that English was part of the same language family as of India. But re-­ Not really. Amateur efforts (mainly in the 19th searchers accumulated so many strong parallels that it century) led to some claims of connections between became clear that an Indo-European family of lan- Amerindian and Semitic languages, but none of guages had once stretched halfway around the world. those speculations have proved acceptable, or even of Migration across an ocean poses bigger prob- interest, to qualified linguists. In fact, the lack of lin- lems, of course, but science offers stunning surprises guistic methodology in those early efforts had the in every field. If the data provide solid results, we opposite effect, callousing linguists against any pro- pursue them further. Bad ideas hit dead ends. Yet posals for connections between distant languages. this UA-Near East case is becoming more convinc- The mere mention of a possible Hebrew-Amerindian ing with each year of investigation. tie would likely evoke a “roll of the eyes” or a “not- another-one-of-these” response from most profes- From a lexical point of view, what is the best evi- sional linguists. No, no one has yet succeeded in dence you have found for Semitic influence on UA? demonstrating any Amerindian-Semitic connection to the satisfaction of the linguistic community. Fur­ The following word pairs are a sample. (An thermore, anyone trying to connect New World asterisk signifies a hypothetical form in the parent peoples and civilizations with the Old World risks language, a form that has been linguistically recon- accusations that he or she is a religious fanatic, structed from forms in the descendant languages.) pseudo-scientist, or racist who wants to downgrade the independent genius of American Indians. For Hebrew/Semitic UA those concerned about professional reputation, tak- ing up an unpopular cause can definitely hurt their baraq ‘lightning’ berok (derived from careers. *pïrok) ‘lightning’ Besides the desire to avoid such negative labels, there are other reasons that conventional linguists ¡ekem/¡ikm- ‘shoulder’ *sikum/sïka ‘shoulder’ have not dealt with the issue of interhemispheric language connections. First of all, there are not that kilyah/kolyah ‘kidney’ *kali ‘kidney’ many trained linguists actively doing historical research. Many earn their degree and then do some- mayim/meem ‘water’ meme-t ‘ocean’ thing else for a living. Second, even among active researchers, a high percentage on or specialize The meanings are clearly the same, or near to it, in other aspects of linguistics—grammatical theory, while the sounds are recognizably similar and language acquisition and teaching, psycholinguistic appear in the same order. However, the real strength research, or sociolinguistics—instead of historical of this case is not in a handful of words, but in the

56 VOLUME 9, NUMBER 2, 2000 fact that perhaps a thousand comparable similarities sense that no new UA terms are being formed along have been identified, in accordance with phonologi- the same lines as once was the case. cal rules not easily explained in a short article for are important in establishing language general audiences. ties because they are core, conservative elements of The lexical evidence is fairly extensive but not grammar. The whole system of reconstructed UA enough to suggest that Hebrew was the sole ancestor of pronouns shows considerable correspondence in UA. The Near Eastern element in the UA lexicon may sound and structure to Semitic systems. Of the six constitute 30 percent to 40 percent, which is signifi- standard pronominal slots (singular and of , well above the 10 percent lower limit mentioned first, second, and third person), recognizably Hebrew- earlier, but not as high as Latin’s descendants show. like forms occupy five of the six slots in UA lan- guages. The only slot totally unknown to So you are saying that in these word parallels you Semitic is UA first-person plural *tami ‘we’. Even find evidence for consistent sound changes of the though Semitic morphology may be fossilized (non- type linguists demand? productive) in UA, it is still possible to see a variety of Semitic morphological forms in UA words.5 Yes. A substantial number of primary sound correspondences are presented in my article in vol- How does all this compare with what linguists ume 5 of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.3 have established in the way of language relation- Questions remain, of course, but that is the case for ships in other language families? every established language family. Even in the great Indo-European family, which includes most Euro­ It compares very well, and in fact this evidence pean languages and whose basic sound changes were is much stronger than for many ties that linguists figured out long ago, many exceptions to the major have accepted. For instance, the Zuni language is rules existed. Many of the exceptions were later ex­- considered connected with the Penutian family, and plained by discoveries of secondary phonological that link has found its way into most encyclopedias rules applying to special conditions or phonological on the basis of much slimmer evidence than this environments. Nonetheless, anomalies still plague UA-Semitic tie. analysts looking at any language family. The evidence for the UA-Semitic link is still in the rough. But the data exist for producing a solid, What confirmation do you have of a UA-Semitic professional treatment. Many details remain to be tie from patterns of grammar and word formation worked out, yet the evidence for a Semitic element in in the two families? UA includes all the standard requirements of com- parative or historical linguistic research: sound corre- First of all, Semitic grammar and UA grammar spondences or consistent sound shifts, morphological are very different from each other. Certain grammat- correspondences, and a substantial lexicon of as many ical structures in Semitic are usually found as “fos- as 1,000 words that exemplify those correspondences. silized,” or frozen, artifacts in UA. Nevertheless, many Though I have not yet written a full linguistic inactive traces of Semitic grammar are apparent in treatment of the proposed UA-Semitic tie, my work UA. Here are some interesting examples: Hebrew ya- strictly in UA has been substantive enough to make

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 57 us about how linguists look at genetic, or Some of the clearest examples of creole lan- -to-daughter, descent of languages and how guages developed in colonial when, for exam- that is different from language mixing. ple, French rule was imposed on speakers of some native languages. In each situation, parts of the Genetic descent means that a single language, French were absorbed into the hybrid language. over time, develops into areal dialects; then with fur- Sometimes the mixing can be said to have created a ther time and decreased contact, those dialects even- new language, called a creole (for example, in Haiti). tually become distinct languages. Different patterns I believe such a process may explain the combi- of change in different areas allow multiple languages nation of Semitic and non-Semitic elements appar- to evolve directly from one common earlier lan- ent in UA. Whether these differing elements are the guage. For example, English, German, Dutch, Swe­ result of the sudden rise of a distinct dish, Danish, and Norwegian all have roots in Old or of gradual heavy influences over time, or both, I Germanic, which is a branch of Indo-European. am not yet sure. But I do see language mixing as a Those genetic roots can be seen in vocabulary, huge factor in the prehistory of Amerindian lan- sound changes, and grammar. guages. I believe this widespread multidimensional Also common change is the borrow- mixing has made Amerindian languages difficult to ing of words (called “loanwords”) from surrounding sort out genetically. It may also partially explain the tongues. For example, an original Germanic *sk had variety of views and hypotheses offered to explain changed to sh in Old English but remained sk in their relationships. North Germanic Scandinavian languages. Because English borrowed some of those words from North What is your best guess about when Semitic and Germanic, modern English has pairs such as shirt and UA came into contact? skirt, ship and skipper. The sound correspondences reveal from which the terms came. Words I can see either of two possible scenarios: (1) genetically descended from Old English show sh, that UA was at its core Near Eastern but later was while those borrowed from North Germanic show heavily influenced by non-Semitic (“native”) sk.7 Though modern English has borrowed heavily tongues, or (2) that UA began as the result of a cre- from North Germanic, French, Latin, and Greek, its ole or language mix in which Semitic was a signifi- proper genetic descent is through West Germanic. cant to dominant component from the start. Four Beyond borrowing and beyond genetic descent, points lead me to that opinion. First, the Semitic sometimes two speech communities merge in some elements appear prominently in all eight branches of sort of constant contact that requires, if they are UA. If a Semitic element had joined a non-Semitic going to communicate, a special speech medium UA base after the language family began dispersing, with characteristics of both languages. Sometimes then we would expect that only some branches one or the other language may dominate the mixed would show the Semitic influence while other relationship. Or a creole, or distinct hybrid, language branches would be free from the Near East influ- may emerge, containing more or less equal contribu- ence. Second, since pronouns are usually one of the tions from both languages. English has been so heav- more stable features of language, more resistant to ily influenced by Latin languages, mainly Latin and change, the fact that Near Eastern pronouns are Norman French, that some consider English a mixed prominent in five of the six slots mentioned earlier language, although others do not. Whether called also speaks for the Near Eastern component being “mixed” or not, modern English has kept only 15 part of the beginnings of UA. Because English third- percent of the Old English vocabulary; the other 85 person plural pronouns—they, their, them—are percent was lost primarily because new rival terms Scandinavian replacements of Old English hie, hiera, came in from neighboring languages.8 While most of and him,9 the ratio of five of six slots of modern our basic words derive from Old English, about half English pronouns being from Old English parallels the vocabulary in modern written English is Latin what we find in UA, where five of six slots come based, and perhaps 90 percent of the words in an from the Semitic. unabridged dictionary would be from sources other Third, the fact that the sound changes or corre- than the original ancestor, Old English. spondences apply to most of the Semitic forms in all

58 VOLUME 9, NUMBER 2, 2000 branches of UA suggests Semitic involvement from modern English has of Old English, even though the the beginnings of PUA. The few lexical (word) ex-­ 2,600 years of a potential tie is more than twice ceptions to those rules may have come into UA later as long as 1,200 years. In other words, UA may have or may have been borrowed between branches. Many retained Semitic four times better than modern of such details remain to be worked out. Fourth, it English has retained Old English. So I do not see UA appears that UA involves contributions from two prehistory needing to be pushed back any further different variants of Hebrew. Some Hebrew pho­ than 2,500 years necessarily. Furthermore, the rise of nemes (basic sound units) show two sets of corre- a sudden 50/50 mix of Semitic and some other lan- spondences. That complicates the case for a presen- guage element(s) could easily make an actual time- tation to linguists, but I can’t help that. The data depth of 2,500 years look like a glottochronological suggest the merger of two different strains of time-depth of 5,000 years. On the other hand, the Hebrew, each with its own set of rules. The contrast Latin languages have preserved a much higher per- between the mutually unintelligible languages of the centage of vocabulary in a comparable length of Nephites and Mulekites naturally comes to mind, time. So it is perhaps too early to a definite date but we do not know that what happened with UA on the appearance of PUA. had anything to do with that particular historical Nevertheless, my best guess, to change as relationship. Nevertheless, the fact that both Hebrew more discoveries are made about the languages, is extracts appear in all branches, and for some terms that originally UA was basically Semitic but then in all 30 UA languages, suggests not only an original was heavily influenced by other languages. Another Semitic element in PUA, but possibly two such ele- reason for that guess is that the time-depth of UA’s ments from the beginning of UA. For example, UA Semitic element could not be too great, because the *kwasï ‘boil, cook, ripen’ (Hebrew ba¡al ‘boil, ripen’) UA plural *-ima agrees with the Northwest and UA *kwasiy ‘tail, penis, flesh’ (Hebrew basar Semitic genitive plural suffix *-iima, which is a later ‘flesh, penis’) show the change of Hebrew b > PUA development even in Semitic, not occurring at all in *kw (the sign > means “became” or “changed to”), Akkadian or East Semitic, and is most salient in and they appear in all branches and nearly all the Hebrew. A derivative even from other non-Eastern descendant UA languages. On the other hand, UA Semitic languages would more likely contain the *poow ‘road, path, way’ (Hebrew boo< ‘coming, way’) nominative vowel -uu(ma) instead of -ii(ma), but exemplifies Hebrew b > PUA *p and Hebrew < > UA shows *-ima, not *-uma.12 PUA *w, and this shift also appears in all 30 UA lan- I have tried to answer your question fairly, even guages. Showing that same correspondence is UA though I may have allowed myself to be drawn into *pïrok ‘lightning’, which aligns with Hebrew baraq giving answers that still are uncomfortably tentative. ‘lightning’. The Semitic similarly corre- sponds to both w (UA *poow ‘road’ above) and < What Semitic language or languages appear to be (glottal stop). involved? Your comparisons seem to depend pri- I hesitate to put a time frame on UA, for a num- marily on Hebrew, but are other Semitic languages, ber of reasons. One is that even though Uto-Aztecan­ such as Arabic mentioned earlier or Egyptian/ ists tend to throw around UA’s “presumed” glot- Coptic, involved or helpful in the comparison tochronological time-depth of 5,000 years, many process? questions have been raised about the accuracy of glottochronological dating.10 Isolation versus intense Hebrew seems to be the Near Eastern can skew—i.., either slow or speed up— most represented in UA. But the longer I look, the rates of change tremendously. The Old English of more parallels I find to Arabic and Egyptian. But I only 1,200 years ago has lost 85 percent of its vocab- also realize that our knowledge of Hebrew is partial. ulary, leaving only 15 percent of the original Old The Hebrew Old Testament is our primary source English vocabulary intact a mere 1,000 years later.11 for ancient Hebrew, and while it seems like a big Much of that change occurred rapidly during the book, it yields only a limited sample of the ancient intense contact of the three centuries of Norman Hebrew language. We can be sure that many more French rule in England. So if I am seeing UA con- words and variant uses of existing words were part taining 30 percent Semitic, that is twice as much as of Israelite speech but did not happen to be used in

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 59 the scripture. Besides, there were influences from Most interesting to me is Egyptian ˙m< ‘salt’ and other dialects and area vocabularies not represented UA *homwa ‘salt’. This is consistent with the sound in the ancient Hebrew writings per se. Furthermore, correspondences of Semitic < > UA w and pharyn- the various parts of the Old Testament reflect only geal ˙ > ho/w/o/u in UA.16 There are perhaps a dozen the dialect of the writer of that part. Hence, much or fewer UA sets (groups of related words) remains unknown about ancient Hebrew. So noting that show a reflex (word or form) in all 30 UA lan- similarities to related languages, whose forms may guages; *homwa ‘salt’ is one of them. not be in the written records we have, is reasonable, if done with care and restraint. Arabic seems to surface more regularly as a Egyptian UA source for UA words than we might expect for a i

60 VOLUME 9, NUMBER 2, 2000 hm< and UA *homwa ‘salt’ discussed above could fea- For example, in Arabic writing, the same let- sibly be a term spread through trade; however, Egyp­ ter—aleph—is used for the consonant pronounced tian sm< ‘lung’ with the same second and third conso- as a glottal stop as well as to mark a long aa . nants as Egyptian hm< ‘salt’, is not an item typically The aleph originally and usually signifies a glottal associated with trade or borrowing and likewise stop, as in Arabic fa

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 61 or proposed interhemispheric influences, some that he cites as the origin of that infusion into involving Semitic and others involving non-Semitic Polynesia is UA. Old World languages. However, none of these has Returning to the original question, I am not been generally accepted by the linguistic community. aware of any other linguist seriously working at the I have not found any of the Semitic proposals present time on a Semitic-Amerindian tie. We might convincing either, except two. One includes the ask why anyone would want to, in light of 100 per- observations of three persons: A prominent linguist, cent rejection by the linguistic community generally , once alluded to a few Hebrew-like of all such efforts undertaken thus far. But I consider similarities in Zapotec (a language of southern it important work; it is an interest I can hardly let go Mexico). Pierre Agrinier, under Swadesh’s tutelage, of, in spite of its immensity and tedium, something produced a list of Near East–Zapotec similarities like moving a mountain with a shovel. I feel like I’m that is still unpublished. F. Smith then fol- racing against time to see which will be finished lowed up on Agrinier’s work with three brief studies first—me or the research projects on my to-do list. of his own on Egyptian/Semitic and Zapotec com- My precursory surveys of language families through- parisons.18 His work offers interesting leads. The out the Americas have me interested in perhaps a other useful example is Arnold Leesburg’s work on dozen of them, but three or more linguist lifetimes lexical similarities between Hebrew and Quechua, could be spent in one language family. So I must pri- the language of the Incas of Peru.19 Leesburg’s lack oritize and hurry. I would also welcome help. of linguistic methodology means that linguists ignore it. Nevertheless, a number of his “word com- What is needed to see that this area of study moves parisons” could feed a competent linguistic treat- forward vigorously? ment, while others may have to be discarded. Observations on Semitic in Quechua have long A few more enthusiastic linguists, interested in interested me, and becoming aware of Leesburg’s the problem enough to invest the years of prepara- work added to that interest and to previous observa- tion needed to learn the discipline of historical lin- tions I had made. guistics, to immerse themselves in Near Eastern lan- Other continents aside, I find John Sorenson’s, guages and an Amerindian language family or two, Mary Ritchie Key’s, and Kelley’s proposed ties and to establish themselves as published authorities between the Pacific islands and the Americas to be in the language family of their choice. It is admit­ interesting and meriting further investigation.20 tedly a heavy investment, especially without pro­ While Mormons tend to focus on Hagoth’s group(s) spects of earning a living at it, though I do so: teach- going out into the Pacific, to mix with Austronesians ing English, Spanish, and ESL in a community col- who came or were coming from the other direction, lege, while working on the side at this fascinating we must keep in mind that the Austronesian move- lifetime hobby. The scale of the required investment, ment was mainly eastward and that the Samoan and of course, explains why there is so little help in this Tongan islands were settled a half millennium matter. Nevertheless, I often think how wonderful it before Lehi even left Jerusalem. That Polynesian would be if two or three young linguists were to eastward expansions sometimes reached American become interested, do the preparation, become shores seems logistically very probable. How would acknowledged authorities in their languages of spe- those expert oceanic explorers find almost every cialization, and then all of us collaborate on the inhabitable dot and speck of land in the huge Pacific larger historical puzzle. The work of each would expanse yet miss a land mass that extends from the shed light on the larger picture and would help one North Pole to the South Pole? Further Oceania- another. Three or four can do a five-million-piece American studies may identify larger vocabularies of jigsaw puzzle much faster than one person can, and various migrations from both directions. Sorenson’s together we could collectively accomplish as much and Key’s works note similarities in vocabulary every 5 years as I have over the last 20. without specifying direction. Kelley’s work, on the other hand, suggests a migration from the Americas When will a credible case on this issue be ready to to Polynesia, and, interestingly, the language family present to doubting linguists?

62 VOLUME 9, NUMBER 2, 2000 The languages mentioned in that scripture are (1) a Before publishing it for that audience, anyone Lehi dialect of Hebrew (with Arabic, Hebrew, and should build an unassailably strong case, presented in Egyptian names), (2) a Mulekite Hebrew dialect, (3) standard linguistic fashion according to the compara- Egyptian, and (4) the unknown Jaredite language or tive method. Even then it may meet with vigorous re-­ languages.21 And in Amerindian languages I find two sistance. Yet even that could be a good sign, since it strains of Hebrew, some Egyptian, some Arabic, and would take a strong case to make unbelieving linguists many languages of improbable or unknown Old pay enough attention to cause a controversy, rather World connections. Not all of the unknowns would than to be ignored as usual. But to have the mat­ter be Jaredite, of course. What I just said is an oversim- made public by one who has not demonstrated lin- plification of the matter, since many languages are guistic competence as a published scholar in any rele- part of America’s prehistory aside from what is vant language family would be counterproductive. reported in the Book of Mormon. Undoubtedly, East The baby of the distant connection to Semitic would Asian languages have entered the Americas, whether then easily be thrown out with the bathwater of inad- via the land bridge, coastal boating, transoceanic equate methodology. To avoid such premature dump- crossings,­ or all three. In addition, the Jaredite peoples ing, I aim to finish my book, A Comparative Vocabu­ were in the Americas some millennia before Lehi and lary of Uto-Aztecan Languages, eight years in process, Mulek arrived and were likely to be more widespread with perhaps two more to go. It contains nearly five and more numerous than the later arrivals. Various times as many cognate sets as the last comprehensive Jaredite offshoots probably reached into North and book published on UA (about 2,400 versus 514). I South America, to places out of touch with the war- hope it will serve as a cornerstone of UA linguistics ring kingdoms, and thus were not in­volved in the and will establish my position as a linguist and Uto- conflicts recorded in Ether and are among the ances- Aztecanist deserving to be heard, while laying a foun- tors of today’s Amerindians, perhaps primarily so in dation for Semitic comparisons. some language families. And perhaps others besides I also feel the need to make professionally East Asians and Book of Mormon peoples entered accepted linguistic contributions in two other lan- pre-Columbian America as well. Nevertheless, I see guage families, since the Near Eastern element in enough evidence in enough language families that I America will eventually involve several language am optimistic that we can eventually reconstruct families anyway, I am confident. Furthermore, we some of these Book of Mormon languages to a sig- cannot put together the best case until the rate of nificant degree. discovering new Hebrew and Egyptian elements in The Book of Mormon text says it has not room Amerindian languages slows and the body of data to tell us a hundredth part of historical happenings, stabilizes. As long as I continue discovering new evi- which would include the language histories of its dence of this connection at the present rate, it must peoples. So American languages offer us a tremen- mean that I am nowhere near the end. The whole dous potential to refine and further define Book of pattern cannot be characterized accurately until we Mormon languages, peoples, and relocation patterns have most of the data in hand. as evidenced by language connections. The Book of Perhaps in a decade, after finishing the UA book Mormon contains few comments on language besides and making other substantial contributions, I would its mention of Hebrew and Egyptian. Lehi’s language be ready to publish on this matter (involving multi- may have been a different dialect than biblical He-­ ple language families) for the linguistic community. brew, so we should not jump to too many conclu- The time might be reduced if a few competent and sions about Book of Mormon language(s). I think we interested linguists, willing to devote the time, are going to be surprised in many ways. For me the would collaborate. prospects in this area of study are exciting. !

Do your observations in language agree or conflict with your reading of the Book of Mormon? I see no conflict whatever, and my observations agree very well with the Book of Mormon account.

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 63 en la costa sur de ,” in of Bonn: New Contributions to the Arche­ Ludlow (: Macmillan, 1992), Polynesia, and Comparisons with American Investigaciones Arqueológicas en la Costa Sur ology, , Ethnolinguistics and 1:179–81. Indians,” American Journal of Physical de Guatemala, ed. David S. Whitley and Ethnography of the Americas, Bonn Ameri­ Anthropology 13 (1955): 667–90. Marilyn P. Beaudry (Los Angeles: UCLA canist Studies, vol. 30 (Markt Schwaben, 8. See A. E. Mourant, “Blood Groups in Institute of Archaeology, 1989), 29. Germany: Verlag Anton Saurwein, 1998), Nephi the Pacific Area,” Eighth Congress of the 21. See R. E. W. , “Early Classic 239–56. Paul Y. Hoskisson International Society of Blood Transfusion : A View from Rio Azul,” in 32. See Sorenson, “Fortifications in the (Tokyo 1960), Proceedings (Tokyo: 1962), Emergence of Lowland Maya Civilization, ed. Book of Mormon,” 425–44, regarding 1. The suggested roots are not attested, as 149–53. Grube, 35–48. instances of early militarism. far as I can determine, in other North-West 9. See Rupert I. Murrill, Cranial and 22. See, for example, Juan Antonio Semitic languages, i.e., Phoenician, Postcranial Skeletal Remains from Valdés, “ Proyecto Miraflores II dentro del Ammonite, Moabite, etc. is another Island (Minneapolis: University of marco preclásico de Kaminaljuyú,” in Was There Hebrew Language in Ancient candidate, but the sources I have checked Minnesota Press, 1968), 77–79. Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en America? An Interview with Brian Stubbs produced negative results. Someone with 10. See Frank B. Livingstone, “An Analysis Guatemala, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte and more expertise in Aramaic than I have of the ABO Blood Group Clines in Europe,” Héctor L. Escobedo (Guatemala: Museo 1. For other examples, see Brian D. should make a thorough search of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology 31 Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Stubbs, “Looking Over vs. Overlooking numerous Aramaic dialects. (1969): 1–10; M. Allison et al., “ABO Blood Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto Native American Languages: Let’s Void the 2. See Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Groups in Chilean and Peruvian Mummies, de Antropología e Historia, y Asociación Void,” JMBS 5/1 (1995): 16. This article may Loretz, Analytic Bibliography, Alter II: Results of -Inhibition Tikal, 1997), 1:81–86; Kuniaki Ohi et al., be purchased from FARMS in reprint form. and Altes Testament 6 (Neukirchen- Technique,” American Journal of Physical “Los resultados de las investigaciones arque­ 2. See ibid., 27–32, for examples. Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, Anthropology 49 (1978): 139–42; and T. E. ológicas en Kaminaljuyú,” in ibid., 1:93–100; 3. See ibid., 17. 1996), 777, s.v. “npy.” Reed, “The Evidence for Natural Selection and Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase, 4. See ibid., 24, 25, 28. 3. In South-, the p Due to Blood Groups,” World Population “External Impetus, Internal Synthesis, and 5. Details can be found in ibid. of other Semitic languages corresponds to Conference (Belgrade, 1965), Proceedings 2 Standardization: E Group Assemblages and 6. See, for example, Brian D. Stubbs, “The an f. As far as I am aware, Hugh Nibley was (New York: United Nations, 1967), 498–502. the Crystallization of Classic Labial Labyrinth in Uto-Aztecan,” Interna­ the first person to draw attention to the rele­ 11. This is still assumed in a current in the Southern Lowlands,” in Emergence of tional Journal of American Linguistics 61/4 vance of the personal nfy to Nephi. See anthropology textbook. See Colin Renfrew Lowland Maya Civilization, ed. Grube, (1995), 396–422; and “More Palatable his An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 2nd and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, 87–101. Reconstructions for Uto-Aztecan Palatals,” ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1964), Methods, and Practice, 2nd ed. (London and 23. Bruce . Dahlin, Robin Quizar, and International Journal of American Linguistics 239, . 27 (or [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book New York: Thames and Hudson, 1996), 436: Andrea Dahlin, “Linguistic Divergence and 66/1 (2000): 125–37. and FARMS, 1988], 290, n. 28). “The language spoken by a human commu­ the Collapse of Preclassic Civilization in 7. See Albert C. Baugh and Thomas 4. Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, nity is the best predictor of what genetic Southern Mesoamerica,” American Antiquity Cable, A History of the , Analecta Orientalia 38 (Rome: Pontificum characteristics . . . that community will 52 (1987): 367. 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967), Institutum Biblicum, 1965), 446, s.v. “np>.” have.” 24. Ibid., 379. 96. See also Dietrich and Loretz, 778. 12. See, for example, Juan Comas, 25. See Valdés, “Desarrollo cultural,” 8. See ibid., 55. 5. Not being an Egyptologist, I am not in “Características físicas de la familia lingüísti­ 72–73. 9. See ibid., 101. a position to evaluate the Egyptian sugges­ ca Maya,” Universidad Nacional Autónoma de 26. See, for example, Nicholas P. 10. See Schulte and Beverly tions and so offer them here with little com­ México, Serie Antropológica 20 (México: Dunning, of the Hills: Ancient Maya Seckinger, “The Dating Game: One Last ment. UNAM, 1966). Comas compared the results Settlement in the Puuc Region, Yucatán, Look at Glottochronology: The Case of 6. Hugh W. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert; The of more than half a century of study of Mexico (Madison, Wis.: Prehistory Press, Some Arabic Dialects,” in Atlatl Occasional World of the Jaredites; There Were Jaredites Maya-speaking groups to find marked bio­ 1992), 25–28; Bruce H. Dahlin, “Climate and Papers, No. 5, ed. Barbara Roth and (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, logical differences among distinct groups Prehistory on the Yucatan Peninsula,” Susannah Hexer (Tucson: University of 1988), 27. within the language community, apparently Climatic Change 5 (1983): 245–63; Arizona, 1984–85), 41–77. due to intermarriage with non-Mayan . Folan et al., “Paleoclimatic Patterning in 11. See Baugh and Cable, History of the groups, genetic drift, endogamy, and adap­ Southern Mesoamerica,” Journal of Field English Language, 55. New Light tive selection. See also M. Layrisse, Z. Archaeology 10 (1983): 453–68; William T. 12. See the discussion in Stubbs, “Native Layrisse, and J. Wilbert, “Blood Group Sanders et al., The Natural Environment, American Languages,” 13. 1. See Morris Swadesh, “Linguistics as an Antigen Studies of Four Chibchan[-speak- Contemporary Occupation and Sixteenth 13. See Stubbs, ibid., 26. Instrument of Prehistory,” Southwestern ing] Tribes,” American Anthropologist 65 Century Population of the Valley, Occasional 14. Brian D. Stubbs, “The Male Names in Journal of Anthropology 15 (1959): 20–35. (1963): 36–55; the tribes do not form a Papers in Anthropology, no. 3 (University Lehi’s Family,” unpublished MS in FARMS 2. See Morris Swadesh, “Lexicostatistic homogeneous genetic group. Park: Pennsylvania State University Depart­ library. Classification,” in Linguistics, ed. N. A. 13. See R. T. Simmons, “The Biological ment of Anthropology, 1970), 88; and 15. See Stubbs, “Native American McQuown, vol. 5 of Handbook of Middle Origin of Australian Aborigines: An Nicholas P. Dunning, “Coming Together at Languages,” 36. American Indians (Austin: University of Examination of Blood Group Genes and the Temple Mountain: Environment, Sub­ 16. See ibid., 21, 24. Press, 1967), 79–116; and Dell H. Gene Frequencies for Possible Evidence in sistence, and the Emergence of Lowland 17. For *r > y, see ibid., 17–19. Hymes, “Lexicostatistics So Far,” Current Populations from Australia to Eurasia,” in Maya Segmentary States,” in Emergence of 18. Pierre Agrinier compiled an unpub­ Anthropology 1 (1960), 3–44. The Origin of the Australians, ed. R. L. Kirk Lowland Maya Civilization, ed. Grube, lished list of similarities between Hebrew 3 See R. E. Longacre, “Swadesh’s Macro- and A. G. Thorne (Canberra: Australian 61–69. and Zapotec. Robert Smith’s unpublished Mixtecan Hypothesis,” International Journal Institute of Aboriginal Studies and Atlantic 27. See Dahlin, Quizar, and Dahlin, papers of 1969, 1971, and 1977 followed up of American Linguistics 21/1 (1961): 9–29; K. Highlands; : Humanities Press “Linguistic Divergence,” 379. on Agrinier’s work with further comparisons Bergsland and H. Vogt, “On the Validity of International, 1976), 307–28. 28. See A. Demarest et al., “Classic under the title “Sawi-Zaa Word Glottochronology,” Current Anthropology 3 14. See, for example, S. M. Borgognini Maya Defensive Systems and Warfare in the Comparisons.” (1962): 115–53; and D. L. Olmsted, Torli and G. Paoli, “Survey of Petexbatun Region: Archaeological Evidence 19. See Arnold Leesburg, Comparative “Lexicostatistics as ‘Proof’ of Genetic Paleoserological Studies,” Homo 33/2 (1982): and Interpretations,” Ancient Mesoamerica 8 : A Comparison between Semitic and Relationship: the Case of ‘Macro- 69–89; and J. Comas, Antropología de los (1997): 229–53; Takeshi Inomata, “The Last American Languages (Leyden: Brill, 1908). Manguean,’” VI Congrès International des puebloos iberoamericanos (Barcelona: Day of a Fortified Classic Maya Center: 20. See John L. Sorenson, “Evidences of Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologiques, Editorial Labor, 1972), 35: “It seems that the Archaeological Investigations at Aguateca, Culture Contacts between Polynesia and the Paris, 1960 (Paris: 1964), 2/2: 69–73. beginning of the second half of the twenti­ Guatemala,” Ancient Mesoamerica 8 (1997): Americas in Precolumbian Times” (master’s 4. See C. A. Callaghan and W. R. Miller, eth century coincides with the end of the 337–51; and Arthur A. Demarest, “The thesis, BYU, 1952); Mary Ritchie Key, “Swadesh’s Macro-Mixtecan Hypothesis and myth of the (single) ‘American homotype.’” Violent Saga of a Maya Kingdom,” National Polynesian and American Linguistic English,” Southwestern Journal of 15. See “The Human Biology of the Geographic, February 1993, 95–111. Connections (Lake Bluff, Ill.: Juniper Press, Anthropology 18 (1962): 278–85; and K. V. Western Pacific Basin,” Yearbook of Physical 29. See Demarest et al., “Classic Maya 1984); and David H. Kelley, “Tane and Sina: Teeter, “Lexico­statistics and Genetic Anthropology 18 (1976): 202–45. Defensive Systems,” 231. A Uto-Aztecan Astronomical Cult in Relationship,” Language 39 (1964): 638–48. 16. See Rubén Lisker, “El de los 30. See Bruce Dahlin, “The Barricade and Polynesia,” in Circumpacifica: Festschrift für 5. J. J. Graydon, “Blood Groups and the grupos humanos en América: serología y Abandonment of Chunchucmil: Impli­ Thomas S. Barthel, ed. Bruno Illius and Polynesians,” Mankind 4 (1952): 329–39. hematología en general de los Ameríndios y cations for Northern Maya Warfare,” Latin Matthias Laubscher (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 6. A. E. Mourant, The Distribution of sus posibles relaciones trans-pacíficas,” American Antiquity 11/3 (2000): 283–98. 1990), 2:137–56. Human Blood Groups (Springfield, Ill.: C. C. Thirty-Sixth International Congress of 31. Markus Reindel, “El abandono de las 21. For further discussion, see Brian D. Thomas, 1954), 144–47. Americanists (Barcelona and Seville, 1964), ciudades Puuc en el norte de Yucatán,” in 50 Stubbs, “Book of Mormon Language,” in 7. See R. T. Simmons et al., “A Blood Proceedings 1 (Barcelona and Seville: 1966), Years of Americanist Studies at the University Encyclopedia of , ed. H. Group Genetical Survey of Cook Islanders, 43–51.

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 83