ANGOLA: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Any connection with the Turkish capitol Ankara, from Greek άγκυρα, and the famous cloth produced there, angora/Angola, is highly doubtful and could only have been from Hittite or Luwian sources in the Iron Age, if indeed the name existed in those days. (JAT) | Any connection with the Turkish capitol Ankara, from Greek άγκυρα, and the famous cloth produced there, angora/Angola, is highly doubtful and could only have been from Hittite or Luwian sources in the Iron Age, if indeed the name existed in those days. (JAT) | ||
It is doubtful that the -ng- in Angola can be explained by an appeal to the transliteration conceits used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham. While it is true that he rendered the ayin of Hebrew words with gn and ng, “Gnolaum” (ʿwlm) and “Raukeeyang” (rqyʿ), respectively (Abraham Fac. 1 Fig. 12; Fac. 2 Fig. 4), this conceit is peculiar to Sephardic Hebrew pronunciation. The Prophet first learned Hebrew pronunciation from his Sephardic Jewish teacher, Seixas, while living in Kirtland, several years after he translated the Book of Mormon, and therefore he would not have used Sephardic transliteration conceits. In fact, in nearly all cases where the Hebrew Vorlage of the Book of Mormon transliteration can be surmised, the transliteration conceits follow the KJV scheme. For example, see the discussion under Jershon. | It is doubtful that the -ng- in Angola can be explained by an appeal to the transliteration conceits used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham. While it is true that he rendered the ayin of Hebrew words with gn and ng, “Gnolaum” (ʿwlm) and “Raukeeyang” (rqyʿ), respectively ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1 Abraham Fac. 1 Fig. 12];[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_2 Fac. 2 Fig. 4]), this conceit is peculiar to Sephardic Hebrew pronunciation. The Prophet first learned Hebrew pronunciation from his Sephardic Jewish teacher, Seixas, while living in Kirtland, several years after he translated the Book of Mormon, and therefore he would not have used Sephardic transliteration conceits. In fact, in nearly all cases where the Hebrew Vorlage of the Book of Mormon transliteration can be surmised, the transliteration conceits follow the KJV scheme. For example, see the discussion under Jershon. | ||
Moreover, Angola most likely cannot be derived from a root with initial aleph-ayin or ayin-ayin. Such patterns at the beginning of roots are contrary to Hebrew patterns, as Greenberg pointed out in his “The Patterning of Root Morphemes in the Semitic Languages.” If, therefore, Book of Mormon -ng- represents Hebrew ayin, then the initial a vowel of Angola most likely could not belong to the root but would probably be a prosthetic aleph. (JAT) | Moreover, Angola most likely cannot be derived from a root with initial aleph-ayin or ayin-ayin. Such patterns at the beginning of roots are contrary to Hebrew patterns, as Greenberg pointed out in his “The Patterning of Root Morphemes in the Semitic Languages.” If, therefore, Book of Mormon -ng- represents Hebrew ayin, then the initial a vowel of Angola most likely could not belong to the root but would probably be a prosthetic aleph. (JAT) | ||
Revision as of 14:22, 21 March 2011
| Nephite GN | 1. | City, ca. 327–8 AD (Mormon 2:4) |
If the root is Semitic, then possibly it may be derived from the common North-West Semitic ʾyn, a particle meaning “there is/are not,” or ʿyn “spring, fountain,” and from glh, “to uncover, reveal,” or gll, some kind of a stone object (DNWSI 224). Any combination of these, such as “open spring,” would yield a suitable GN. An Egyptian etymology is also possible.
It is also possible that this name is not Nephite, but rather is to be derived from another indigenous language group from (?)
Notes
Any connection of Book of Mormon Angola with the African state of Angola is highly unlikely. The name of this African state is hardly mentioned in English before the 19th C., and therefore it may be that Joseph Smith had never heard at the time of the Portuguese colony.
Any connection with the Turkish capitol Ankara, from Greek άγκυρα, and the famous cloth produced there, angora/Angola, is highly doubtful and could only have been from Hittite or Luwian sources in the Iron Age, if indeed the name existed in those days. (JAT)
It is doubtful that the -ng- in Angola can be explained by an appeal to the transliteration conceits used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham. While it is true that he rendered the ayin of Hebrew words with gn and ng, “Gnolaum” (ʿwlm) and “Raukeeyang” (rqyʿ), respectively (Abraham Fac. 1 Fig. 12;Fac. 2 Fig. 4), this conceit is peculiar to Sephardic Hebrew pronunciation. The Prophet first learned Hebrew pronunciation from his Sephardic Jewish teacher, Seixas, while living in Kirtland, several years after he translated the Book of Mormon, and therefore he would not have used Sephardic transliteration conceits. In fact, in nearly all cases where the Hebrew Vorlage of the Book of Mormon transliteration can be surmised, the transliteration conceits follow the KJV scheme. For example, see the discussion under Jershon.
Moreover, Angola most likely cannot be derived from a root with initial aleph-ayin or ayin-ayin. Such patterns at the beginning of roots are contrary to Hebrew patterns, as Greenberg pointed out in his “The Patterning of Root Morphemes in the Semitic Languages.” If, therefore, Book of Mormon -ng- represents Hebrew ayin, then the initial a vowel of Angola most likely could not belong to the root but would probably be a prosthetic aleph. (JAT)
See also Angola / Angolah Variant
