ANGOLA

From Book of Mormon Onomasticon
Revision as of 16:23, 4 February 2011 by Rlc42 (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search
ANGOLA

Nephite GN		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)