SHEUM: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 13:22, 29 March 2023

Lehite noun	1.	Grain or Herb used by Zeniffites for food, ca. 200 BC (Mosiah 9:9)

Etymology

SHEUM is a Book of Mormon hapax legomenon. It occurs in a list with food items, namely, corn, wheat, barley, NEAS (another Book of Mormon hapax legomenon), and fruit seeds. Therefore, SHEUM is a food item. Though it appears in a list of seeds and grains, the context in Mosiah 9:9 allows the possibility that SHEUM, along with NEAS, need not be a grain or a seed.^[1]

The fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not translate this name, but rather transliterated it, indicates that he did not know of an English word for this grain or food item. Therefore, SHEUM cannot be equated with any English names of seeds or grains attested by their English name in the Book of Mormon. Additionally, any suggestions for an etymology probably should also be narrowed to a New World food for which the Prophet would not have known the English translation. Thus, SHEUM is probably not to be equated with wheat, barley, rye, oats, garlic,^[2] onion, sorghum, millet, lentils, pulse, peas, squash, beans, perhaps even emmer wheat,^[3] etc. Native American grains or food items that Joseph Smith might not have been familiar with could include amaranth, chili-peppers (JLS), jocote (mombin), manioc (cassava), huauzontle, chia, teosinte (RFS), possibly quinoa (PYH), etc.

The closest known term available is in Sumerian cuneiform and was used throughout Mesopotamia as a primary word for “grain,” Sumerian ŠE.UM, ŠE.AM, ^ŋešše, še, še-am, ŠE (ŠE.PAD.MEŠ) “barley; grain; length measure 3.33 cm; 1/180 GIN₂ [shekel of silver],”^[4] and long thought to have been borrowed as Old Akkadian *šeʼum “barley; grain; cereal; pine nut (pignolia); grain-measure,”^[5] and Mari *šeʼum “barley,”^[6] though those Akkadian readings are now rejected.^[7] Naturally, that Sumerian logographic form would have to have been passed on to the Zeniffites and people of Zarahemla as part of Jaredite cultural baggage. Zipora Cochavi-Rainey points to the same sort of "habitual spellings" used by Egyptian scribes writing Akkadian.^[8]

Over the years, several other suggestions for an etymology of SHEUM have been proffered and have gained traction in some circles. The discussion here will treat some of these suggestions.

SHEUM might not have an ancient Near Eastern language origin, i.e., it might have been borrowed into Lehite from an indigenous vocabel native to the Americas but unknown to Joseph Smith. In light of this possibility, the suggestion of Maya ixim (pronounced ishim) “maize” would be intriguing^[9] if it were not for the inclusion of “corn” in the same passage where SHEUM occurs.^[10]

On the other hand, SHEUM may be a Semitic or an EGYPTIAN word used for a New World plant. Therefore, looking for a Near Eastern derivation, even if the meaning of the root does not match the parameters outlined above, is appropriate.

The EGYPTIAN noun sm, seems to offer a possible etymology. It means “herb, herbage, vegetables, plants,” etc.^[11] In Demotic (a later script and dialect of EGYPTIAN roughly contemporary with LEHI) this noun appears as both sm and sym,^[12] pronounced sim in Coptic (JG).The EGYPTIAN s appearing as a Semitic š would present no problems^[13] (JG). Thus SHEUM, meaning a New World herb or vegetable for which Joseph Smith did not have a word in English, could have been derived from EGYPTIAN sm.

It might be tempting to equate SHEUM with HEBREW sěʾâ, a grain measure. HEBREW sěʾâ is cognate with Akkadian šeʾatum "milled-grain," and sūtum, "a measuring vessel,"^[14] which (like šeʼum) are ultimately derived from Sumerian ŠE.^[15] However, it is unlikely that HEBREW sĕʾâ (Akkadian sūtu) and Akkadian šeʾum are related. While sūtu is middle weak, šeʾum appears to be final weak. Additionally, samakh and shin are not easily mistaken. Therefore, HEBREW sĕʾâ is probably not the origin of SHEUM, especially since sĕʾâ does not explain the final m.

Other possible starting points in HEBREW are not particularly fruitful. For example, HEBREW has not produced any appropriate words built on šʾm, šʿm, š̴ām, š̴īm, or š̴ūm (for this latter root, “garlic,” see below). The HEBREW noun šōham has been defined on the basis of Akkadian siāmu (“red, brown”), as meaning “red, brown, redness,” a plausible name for a grain or herb. Less fruitful would be Akkadian šâmu, “to buy.” šiʾāmu, “to determine, establish.”

A long shot is the HEBREW word for garlic, šūm, from a root šûm, with a medial waw or long u vowel (Akkadian šūmu, Sumerian SUM, Arabic tˍūm, Aramaic tūmâʾ). It only occurs in the plural in the HEBREW Bible.^[16] Besides the obvious philological problems, this suggestion is unlikely because Joseph Smith would have been able to provide the translation “garlic” instead of a transliteration.

Several other EGYPTIAN nouns are distant possibilities, namely, šmʿ meaning "rush”^[17]; šmʾ.t, "granary;"^[18] and šmʿ, "southern," which is used to refer to a type of grain.^[19] The final weak nature of all three and the feminine ending on the second one make these suggestions unlikely.

Name Index

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

[1] Corn, wheat, barley, and “all manner of fruits” are all preceded by “of,” indicating a genitive relationship with “seeds.” SHEUM and NEAS are not preceded by “of” and therefore do not necessarily stand syntactically in a genitival relationship with “seeds.”

[2] For a discussion of “garlic,” see below.

[3] Emmer wheat is not native to the Americas, although barley is: “…extensive archaeological evidence also points to the cultivation of little barley in the Southwest and parts of Mexico.” Michael T. Dunne and William Green, “Terminal Archaic and Early Woodland plant use at the Gast Spring Site (13LA152), Southeast Iowa,” Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology (Spring 1998), 8; John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith, “Barley in Ancient America,” FARMS Update, December 1983 and December 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 130-132.

[4] PSD, 𒊺 ; John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (1997), 528.

[5] sidered a Sumerian loanword according to von Soden, AHw, 1222; ŠE, šeʼum, “barley, grain,” René Labat, Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne, rev. ed. (Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1976), 367; Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the Univ. of Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute/Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1956-2010) = CAD, “Š2” 17/2:345-355; Koehler & Baumgartner, HALOT, III:1346a; J. L. Sorenson in D. Parry, D. Peterson, and J. Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences (Provo: FARMS, 2002), 288, citing R. F. Smith, “Some ‘Neologisms’ from the Mormon Canon,” in Conference on the Language of the Mormons, 1973 (Provo: BYU Language Research Center, 1973), 66, and Sorenson, “Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe!” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 6/1 (1994):338-339, online at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/ ; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, I:173.

[6] CAD “Š” 14-15, citing A. Finet, ed., La voix de l’opposition en Mésopotamie, March 20, 1973, Colloquium organized by the Belgian Institute of Higher Studies, 181 A.1153:16, coll.; J.-M. Dunand in MARI, 5:669 (Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires); and K. R. Veenhof in NABU 1992/5 (Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires).

[7] Alasdair Livingstone, "The Akkadian Word for Barley: A Note from the Schoolroom," Journal of Semitic Studies 42/1 (Spring 1997):1-5, objects that no such Akkadian reading is viable – cited by Christopher Smith in http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/12/sheum-in-book-of-mormon.html . However, since Sumerian affords an exact parallel, the Akkadian is unnecessary.

[8] Cochavi-Rainey, The Akkadian Dialect of Egyptian Scribes, 37,74.

[9] Mark Wright in a personal communication, 9 October 2012. Bruce Warren has also suggested that ixim might stand behind some Book of Mormon names. See Meridian, 2005, online at http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/196.

[10] Though corn in the King James Bible always means “grain,” and can be assumed in one (Mosiah 9:14) of the three passages where it appears in the Book of Mormon, the other two passages (Mosiah 7:22 and 9:9) do not lend themselves to mean “grain,” but rather “maize.” It must be admitted that maize comes into English through Spanish from Arawakan, the native American language group of the Carribean and much of South America.

[11] Raymond O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle EGYPTIAN (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962), 225.

[12] Wolja Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar (Kopehagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1952), 430.

[13] HEBREW š is represented as an s in EGYPTIAN 28% of the time (James E. Hoch, EGYPTIAN Words in EGYPTIAN Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994] 433), and EGYPTIAN s is a HEBREW š about 33% of the time (ibid., 436). The sound shifts are thus possible.

[14] Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew: Etymological-Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with Supplement on Biblical Aramaic. (Jersey City: KTAV, 2009), 255, citing “S.” Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the Univ. of Chicago. (Chicago: Oriental Institute/Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1956-2010), 420a; Wolfram von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965), 1064a.

[15] Akkadian sūtu, cognate with biblical sĕʾâ, meaning “a measuring vessel,” occurs in the same context in a cuneiform text with the word for (barley) grain, šeʾum. See Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew (Jersey City, NJ: KTAV 2009), 255.

[16] Compare the Samaritan Pentateuch šuwwamәn.

[17] Wolja Erichsen. Demotisches Glossar. (Kopehagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1952), 508.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid, 509.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 |'''[[:Category:Lehite noun|Lehite noun]]'''
 |1.
-|Plantfood, ca. 200 BC ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/9/9#9 Mosiah 9:9])
+|Grain or Herb used by Zeniffites for food, ca. 200 BC ([http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/9.9?lang=eng#8 Mosiah 9:9])
 |}
-The fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not translate this name but rather transliterated it, means that he did not have access to an English word for this food.
+'''Etymology'''
-Therefore, in looking for an identification, the suggestions must be narrowed to an indigenous American food for which the Prophet would not have known the
-English translation. This obviously excludes any foods already attested in the translation, such as barley and wheat, etc., and foods the Prophet would have been
-familiar with, such as corn, rye, oats, garlic, onion, *sorghum, *millet, lentils, *pulse, peas, beans, perhaps even *emmer wheat, etc. Amaranth has been suggested
-(JLS).
-The Lehite word '''SHEUM''' though may be a Semitic word used for a New World plant. Therefore, looking for a Semitic root, even if the meaning of the root does not
+'''S<small>HEUM</small>''' is a Book of Mormon hapax legomenon. It occurs in a list with food items, namely, corn, wheat, barley, [[NEAS|N<small>EAS</small>]] (another Book of Mormon hapax legomenon), and fruit seeds. Therefore, '''S<small>HEUM</small>''' is a food item. Though it appears in a list of seeds and grains, the context in [http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/9.9?lang=eng#8 Mosiah 9:9] allows the possibility that '''S<small>HEUM</small>''', along with [[NEAS|N<small>EAS</small>]], need not be a grain or a seed.<ref>Corn, wheat, barley, and “all manner of fruits” are all preceded by “of,” indicating a genitive relationship with “seeds.” '''S<small>HEUM</small>''' and [[NEAS|N<small>EAS</small>]] are not preceded by “of” and therefore do not necessarily stand syntactically in a genitival relationship with “seeds.”</ref>
-match the parameters outlined above, is appropriate.
-It has been suggested that “X” might be derived from Sumerian ''še'' by way of East Semitic Akkadian, and thus Assyrian and Babylonian, ''še’um''. Aside from the
+The fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not translate this name, but rather transliterated it, indicates that he did not know of an English word for this grain or food item. Therefore, '''S<small>HEUM</small>''' cannot be equated with any English names of seeds or grains attested by their English name in the Book of Mormon. Additionally, any suggestions for an etymology probably should also be narrowed to a New World food for which the Prophet would not have known the English translation. Thus, '''S<small>HEUM</small>''' is probably not to be equated with wheat, barley, rye, oats, garlic,<ref>For a discussion of “garlic,” see below.</ref> onion, sorghum, millet, lentils, pulse, peas, squash, beans, perhaps even emmer wheat,<ref>Emmer wheat is not native to the Americas, although barley is: “…extensive archaeological evidence also points to the cultivation of little barley in the Southwest and parts of Mexico.” Michael T. Dunne and William Green, “Terminal Archaic and Early Woodland plant use at the Gast Spring Site (13LA152), Southeast Iowa,” ''Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology'' (Spring 1998), 8; [[John L. Sorenson]] and [[Robert F. Smith]], “Barley in Ancient America,” ''[[Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies|FARMS]] Update'', December 1983 and December 1984, reprinted in [[John W. Welch]], ed., ''Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The [[Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies|F.A.R.M.S.]] Updates'' (Provo: [[Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies|FARMS]]/[[Salt Lake City|SLC]]: Deseret Book, 1992), 130-132.</ref> etc. Native American grains or food items that Joseph Smith might not have been familiar with could include amaranth, chili-peppers ([[John L. Sorenson|JLS]]), jocote (mombin), manioc (cassava), huauzontle, chia, teosinte ([[Robert F. Smith|RFS]]), possibly quinoa ([[Paul Y. Hoskisson|PYH]]), etc.
-problem mentioned above (the Prophet would have had a word for barley and/or grain and thus would not have rendered the words on the plates with a
-transliteration), this suggestion is highly doubtful. There is no question that ''še'' meant grain and/or barley in Sumerian. However, East Semitic already had a word,
-''uţţatu'', which meant grain and barley and wheat, as well as pine nut. (The West Semitic cognate was ''hţt'' in Ugaritic, ''hţh'' in Hebrew, and ﺔﻄﻨﺣ (?) in Arabic.) The first
-question to be asked would be, why would East Semitic borrow a Sumerian word when it already had one? Well, East Semitic did borrow the word without question.
-But the second question to be asked would be, did the borrowing of ''ŠE'' into Akkadian as ''še’um'' and hence into Assyrian and Babylonian, make the transition into
+The closest known term available is in Sumerian cuneiform and was used throughout Mesopotamia as a primary word for “grain,” Sumerian ŠE.UM, ŠE.AM, <sup>ŋeš</sup>še, še, še-am, ŠE (ŠE.PAD.MEŠ) “barley; grain; length measure 3.33 cm; 1/180 GIN<sub>2</sub> [shekel of silver],”<ref>ePSD, 𒊺 ; John Huehnergard, ''A Grammar of Akkadian'' (1997), 528.</ref> and long thought to have been borrowed as Old Akkadian  ''*šeʼum'' “barley; grain; cereal; pine nut (pignolia); grain-measure,”<ref>once considered a Sumerian loanword according to von Soden, ''AHw'', 1222; ŠE, ''šeʼum'', “barley, grain,” René Labat, ''Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne'', rev. ed. (Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1976), 367; ''Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the Univ. of Chicago'' (Chicago: Oriental Institute/Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1956-2010) = ''CAD'', “Š2” 17/2:345-355; Koehler & Baumgartner, ''HALOT'', III:1346a; J. L. Sorenson in D. Parry, D. Peterson, and J. Welch, eds., ''Echoes and Evidences'' (Provo: FARMS, 2002), 288, citing R. F. Smith, “Some ‘Neologisms’ from the Mormon Canon,” in ''Conference on the Language of the Mormons, 1973'' (Provo: BYU Language Research Center, 1973), 66, and Sorenson, “Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe!” ''Review of Books on the Book of Mormon'', 6/1 (1994):338-339, online at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/ ; ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'', I:173.</ref>  and Mari ''*šeʼum'' “barley,”<ref>''CAD'' “Š” 14-15, citing A. Finet, ed., ''La voix de l’opposition en Mésopotamie'', March 20, 1973, Colloquium organized by the Belgian Institute of Higher Studies, 181 A.1153:16, coll.; J.-M. Dunand in ''MARI'', 5:669 (''Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires''); and K. R. Veenhof in ''NABU'' 1992/5 (''Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires'').</ref> though those Akkadian readings are now rejected.<ref>Alasdair Livingstone, "The Akkadian Word for Barley: A Note from the Schoolroom," ''Journal of Semitic Studies'' 42/1 (Spring 1997):1-5, objects that no such Akkadian reading is viable – cited by Christopher Smith in  http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/12/sheum-in-book-of-mormon.html . However, since Sumerian affords an exact parallel, the Akkadian is unnecessary.</ref>   Naturally, that Sumerian logographic form would have to have been passed on to the Zeniffites and people of Zarahemla as part of Jaredite cultural baggage.  Zipora Cochavi-Rainey points to the same sort of "habitual spellings" used by Egyptian scribes writing Akkadian.<ref>Cochavi-Rainey, ''The Akkadian Dialect of Egyptian Scribes'', 37,74.</ref>
-Hebrew? This part is dubious. Either ''še’um'' came into West Semitic (Hebrew is a West Semitic language) in the Bronze Age or in the Iron Age. If it were during the
-Bronze Age (was there Hebrew in the Bronze Age?), then it would be difficult to explain why ''še’um'' would have been adapted/adopted with an ''m''.
-Mimation is never used with plural endings in East Semitic (Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian), while in North-west Semitic (Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic,
-Phoenician, Ammonite, Moabite, Punic, etc.) –''m'' and –''n'' are normally used with the plural. In other words, if a North-west Semite is smart enough to borrow an East
-Semitic word, complete with case ending, would not the borrower have known that in borrowing the singular ''še’um'', the West Semitic form with case ending would
-be ''še’u''? And if ''še’um'' were borrowed so early, complete with case ending, with (as some would like to see in the Book of Mormon) or without mimation into West
-Semitic, why would North-west Semitic not have dropped the case ending when it dropped all other case endings sometime early in the Iron Age, probably late Iron
-Age I? And if the case endings were dropped, would not mimation on a singular noun be dropped all the more readily? The only examples in which case endings
-have been preserved in Hebrew are in bound forms like ''mtwšlḥ''.
-On the other hand, if ''še’um'' had been borrowed into Hebrew in the Iron Age (when there was no need because Hebrew already had a word for barley and grain, ''sʿrh'',
-the same as in Aramaic and also had a word for wheat), it would still be difficult to explain the preservation of the case ending and the mimation. By
-Neo-Assyrian times (when Israelites first came into sustained contact with East Semitic), case endings and mimation (for the singular only!), if used at all in Assyrian
-and Babylonian, were used only sporadically and often incorrectly. In addition, the neglect of case endings and mimation in Iron Age East Semitic written sources
-reflected an ever earlier neglect in the spoken language. By the time the written form of NA and NB had been somewhat standardized, the spoken language would
-have been leveled even more. In addition, most NA and NB occurrences of ''še’um'' are written logographically, ''ŠE'', or syllabically in the oblique cases, ''še’am'' and ''še’im''.
-(Perhaps R. Borger was referring to these late representations when he wrote, “Stat še finden sich auch die Pseudo-Logogramme še-um, še-im und še-am [ohne
-Rucksicht auf Kasus]. See his Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon, 374.) Therefore, any attempt to derive Book of Mormon “'''SHEUM'''” by an appeal to either written NA/NB
-or even more so from spoken NA/NB must fail.
-To sum up, neither an early borrowing nor a late borrowing can explain why Book of Mormon “S<small>HEUM</small>” could have come through Hebrew with Iron Age Israelites to
+Over the years, several other suggestions for an etymology of '''S<small>HEUM</small>''' have been proffered and have gained traction in some circles. The discussion here will treat some of these suggestions.
-the Americas. Perhaps this could be explained as a Jaredite origin for the word. That seems more defensible than an Iron Age origin. But even that suggestion had its
-problems. Were the Jaredites from the area of the two rivers? It is not certain that the Jaredites came from Mesopotamia. Nibley may be right, that the Tower of
-Babel of Genesis must have been somewhere other than Mesopotamia, just as T. Jacobsen thought the flood epic could not have originated in Mesopotamia. Therefore
-can we be sure the Jaredites had contact with Akkadian? (It would have had to have been Akkadian and not Sumerian; otherwise, the –''um'' could not
-be accounted for.)
-In 1905, Muss & Arnolt suggested a comparison with Hebrew ''seʾāh'', a grain measure. If the etymology is correct, then this food name, like Book of Mormon [[NEAS|N<small>EAS</small>]], may
+'''S<small>HEUM</small>''' might not have an ancient Near Eastern language origin, i.e., it might have been borrowed into Lehite from an indigenous vocabel native to the Americas but unknown to Joseph Smith. In light of this possibility, the suggestion of Maya ''ixim'' (pronounced ''ishim'') “maize” would be intriguing<ref>Mark Wright in a personal communication, 9 October 2012. Bruce Warren has also suggested that ''ixim'' might stand behind some Book of Mormon names. See ''Meridian'', 2005, online at http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/196.</ref> if it were not for the inclusion of “corn” in the same passage where '''S<small>HEUM</small>''' occurs.<ref>Though ''corn'' in the King James Bible always means “grain,” and can be assumed in one ([http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/9.14?lang=eng#13 Mosiah 9:14]) of the three passages where it appears in the Book of Mormon, the other two passages ([http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/7.22?lang=eng#21 Mosiah 7:22] and [http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/9.9?lang=eng#8 9:9]) do not lend themselves to mean “grain,” but rather “maize.” It must be admitted that ''maize'' comes into English through Spanish from Arawakan, the native American language group of the Carribean and much of South America.</ref>
-be a Jaredite borrowing (RFS).
-Knowing the preceding, the following unlikely suggestions have nevertheless been made: Egyptian ''šm'', “herbage” (Coptic ''sim'', “grass, fodder, herbs”); Egyptian ''š3w'',
+On the other hand, '''S<small>HEUM</small>''' may be a Semitic or an [[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]] word used for a New World plant. Therefore, looking for a Near Eastern derivation, even if the meaning of the root does not match the parameters outlined above, is appropriate.
-“coriander;” Egyptian ''swt'' (''zwt''), “wheat;” (This might be a loan word from Sumerian into Egyptian as the sound shifts match-JG) Hebrew ''šūm'', Akkadian ''šūmu'', Sumerian ''s u m'', Arabic ''ūm'', Aramaic ''tūmâʾ'', “garlic.”
+The [[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]] noun ''sm'', seems to offer a possible etymology. It means “herb, herbage, vegetables, plants,” etc.<ref>Raymond O. Faulkner, ''A Concise Dictionary of Middle [[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]]'' (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962), 225.</ref> In Demotic (a later script and dialect of [[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]] roughly contemporary with [[LEHI|L<small>EHI</small>]]) this noun appears as both ''sm'' and ''sym'',<ref>Wolja Erichsen, ''Demotisches Glossar'' (Kopehagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1952), 430.</ref> pronounced ''sim'' in Coptic ([[John Gee|JG]]).The [[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]] ''s'' appearing as a Semitic ''š'' would present no problems<ref>[[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] ''š'' is represented as an ''s'' in [[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]] 28% of the time (James E. Hoch, ''[[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]] Words in [[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]] Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period'' [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994] 433), and [[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]] ''s'' is a [[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] ''š'' about 33% of the time (ibid., 436). The sound shifts are thus possible.</ref> ([[John Gee|JG]]). Thus '''S<small>HEUM</small>''', meaning a New World herb or vegetable for which Joseph Smith did not have a word in English, could have been derived from [[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]] ''sm''.
+It might be tempting to equate '''S<small>HEUM</small>''' with [[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] ''sěʾâ'', a grain measure. [[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] ''sěʾâ'' is cognate with Akkadian ''šeʾatum'' "milled-grain," and ''sūtum'', "a measuring vessel,"<ref>Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, ''An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew: Etymological-Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with Supplement on Biblical Aramaic''. (Jersey City: [[(Jewish Publisher)|KTAV]], 2009), 255, citing “S.” ''Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the Univ. of Chicago.'' (Chicago: Oriental Institute/Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1956-2010), 420a; Wolfram von Soden. ''Akkadisches Handwörterbuch.'' (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965), 1064a.</ref> which (like ''šeʼum'') are ultimately derived from Sumerian ŠE.<ref>Akkadian ''sūtu'', cognate with biblical ''sĕʾâ'', meaning “a measuring vessel,” occurs in the same context in a cuneiform text with the word for (barley) grain, ''šeʾum''. See Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, ''An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew'' (Jersey City, NJ: [[(Jewish Publisher)|KTAV]] 2009),  255.</ref> However, it is unlikely that [[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] ''sĕʾâ'' (Akkadian ''sūtu'') and Akkadian ''šeʾum'' are related. While ''sūtu'' is middle weak, ''šeʾum'' appears to be final weak. Additionally, ''samakh'' and ''shin'' are not easily mistaken. Therefore, [[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] ''sĕʾâ'' is probably not the origin of '''S<small>HEUM</small>''', especially since ''sĕʾâ'' does not explain the final ''m''.
+Other possible starting points in [[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] are not particularly fruitful. For example, [[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] has not produced any appropriate words built on ''šʾm'', ''šʿm'', ''š̴ām'', ''š̴īm'', or ''š̴ūm'' (for this latter root, “garlic,” see below). The [[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] noun ''šōham'' has been defined on the basis of Akkadian ''siāmu'' (“red, brown”), as meaning “red, brown, redness,” a plausible name for a grain or herb. Less fruitful would be Akkadian ''šâmu'', “to buy.” ''šiʾāmu'', “to determine, establish.”
+A long shot is the [[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] word for garlic, ''šūm'', from a root ''šûm'', with a medial ''waw'' or long ''u'' vowel (Akkadian ''šūmu'', Sumerian SUM, Arabic'' tˍūm'', Aramaic ''tūmâʾ''). It only occurs in the plural in the [[HEBREW|H<small>EBREW</small>]] Bible.<ref>Compare the Samaritan Pentateuch ''šuwwamәn''.</ref> Besides the obvious philological problems, this suggestion is unlikely because Joseph Smith would have been able to provide the translation “garlic” instead of a transliteration.
+Several other [[EGYPT|E<small>GYPTIAN</small>]] nouns are distant possibilities, namely, ''šmʿ'' meaning "rush”<ref>Wolja Erichsen. ''Demotisches Glossar.'' (Kopehagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1952), 508.</ref>; ''šmʾ.t'', "granary;"<ref>Ibid.</ref> and ''šmʿ'', "southern," which is used to refer to a type of grain.<ref>Ibid, 509.</ref> The final weak nature of all three and the feminine ending on the second one make these suggestions unlikely.
 See also [[Sheum Variants]]
+'''Variants'''
+'''[[Deseret Alphabet]]:''' 𐐟𐐀𐐊𐐣 (ʃiːʌm)
+'''Notes'''
+----
+<references/>
 [[Category:Names]][[Category:Lehite noun]]
+<div style="text-align: center;"> [[SHERRIZAH|<<]] Sheum [[SHEZ|>>]] </div>
+==[[Name Index]]==
+<big>
+{|border="0" cellpadding="1" width="100%pt"
+|-
+|[[A]]
+|[[B]]
+|[[C]]
+|[[D]]
+|[[E]]
+|<font color="lightgray">F</font>
+|[[G]]
+|[[H]]
+|[[I]]
+|[[J]]
+|[[K]]
+|[[L]]
+|[[M]]
+|[[N]]
+|[[O]]
+|[[P]]
+|<font color="lightgray">Q</font>
+|[[R]]
+|[[S]]
+|[[T]]
+|[[U]]
+|<font color="lightgray">V</font>
+|<font color="lightgray">W</font>
+|<font color="lightgray">X</font>
+|<font color="lightgray">Y</font>
+|[[Z]]
+|}

SHEUM: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 13:22, 29 March 2023

Name Index

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Tools