Evidence #365 | August 23, 2022
Book of Mormon Evidence: Dative Impersonals
Post contributed by
Scripture Central
Abstract
The Book of Mormon frequently uses an archaic grammatical structure known as the dative impersonal. The variety and frequency of its use in the text is unexpected, supporting the theory that the English wording of the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed through Joseph Smith.On at least 50 occasions, the Book of Mormon uses an archaic grammatical form known as the dative impersonal, as in Nephi’s statement “it grieveth me that I must speak” (2 Nephi 32:8).1 According to Royal Skousen, “The dative impersonals almost always take the same basic structure in the Book of Mormon: a subject it (usually an expletive or filler it), a third-person singular verb taking the archaic -eth ending, then a pronoun in the dative, usually me (normally without the preposition to or unto), and then finally some kind of clausal complement (either a that-S clause or an infinitival clause).”2
The dative impersonal appears in the text in connection with 8 different verbs. For some verbs, similar usage is found in the King James Bible while for others there are no biblical counterparts. As demonstrated in the following chart, the Book of Mormon’s usage of these structures exceeds biblical usage, both in variety of phrases and total quantity.3
Dative Impersonal Usage | ||
Verbal Phrases | Book of Mormon | Bible |
GRIEVETH |
|
|
it grieveth me | 11 | 1 |
it grieveth my soul | 1 | 0 |
it grieveth him | 0 | 1 |
MATTERETH4 |
|
|
it mattereth not | 11 | 0 |
PROFITETH |
|
|
it profiteth me nothing | 1 | 1 |
it profiteth him nothing | 2 | 0 |
it profiteth them not | 1 | 0 |
the tree profiteth me nothing | 1 | 0 |
the roots thereof profiteth me nothing | 1 | 0 |
it profiteth a man nothing | 0 | 1 |
SEEMETH |
|
|
it seemeth them good | 1 | 0 |
as seemeth him good | 1 | 0 |
as seemeth thee good | 1 | 0 |
as seemeth me good | 1 | 0 |
it seemeth me that | 1 | 0 |
what seemeth thee good | 0 | 1 |
what seemeth him good | 0 | 1 |
which seemeth him good | 0 | 1 |
what seemeth you best | 0 | 1 |
SORROWETH |
|
|
it sorroweth me | 1 | 0 |
SUFFICETH |
|
|
it sufficeth me | 6 | 0 |
this sufficeth me | 1 | 0 |
the things which I have written sufficeth me | 3 | 0 |
it sufficeth us | 0 | 1 |
SUPPOSETH |
|
|
it supposeth me | 4 | 0 |
WHISPERETH |
|
|
it whispereth me | 1 | 0 |
TOTAL | 50 | 9 |
Early Modern Examples
Skousen notes that the dative impersonal is “clearly archaic” and that “nearly every type” found in the Book of Mormon “can be directly connected with usage in Early Modern English.”5 As demonstrated in the following examples, this is true even for 3 of the 4 types in the Book of Mormon that can’t be found in the Bible.6
It Whispereth Me
1683, Romulus and Hersilia
Nature would shew itself; it whispers me, she was my daughter.
1619, Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, The Maid’s Tragedy
Something whispers me ‘Go not to bed.’
1687, Aphra Behn, The Lucky Chance
but something whispers me—this night I shall be happy
It Sorroweth Me
1583, John Foxe, Acts and Monuments
For this sorroweth me that I am this day alive who should rather have died long since
1595, Adam Hill, The Cry of England
it sorroweth me to think of the minsters of England, for either we never learn to speak, which is slothfulness, or else we speak before we learn, which is rashness
It Mattereth Not
1581, M. Walter Haddon, Against Jerome Osorius
And therefore it mattereth not so much, what a man writeth at any time
1583, Christopher Rosdell (translator), John Calvin’s A Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans
so it mattereth not whether they be Gentiles or Jews
1621, Richard Montagu, Diatribe upon the First Part of the Late History of the Tithes
and thus the modus is, and was different in sundry places; and it mattereth not much
The phrase it supposeth me is the only non-biblical example for which a precise grammatical match can’t be found in Early Modern texts. There is one related examples though:7
1390, Gower, Conf. II. 128
Bot al to lytel him supposeth, Though he mihte al the world pourchace.
Criticisms
Some writers have criticized the Book of Mormon’s use of dative impersonals. One commentator in 1905 took issue with the text’s use of it sorroweth me and it supposeth me, declaring that Joseph Smith must have invented these constructions.8 Similarly, in 1842 La Roy Sunderland criticized the text’s use of it suposeth me and it mattereth not, calling them “blunders.”9 Thus 3 of the 4 non-biblical types have been seen as grammatically defective.10
To date, Skousen and his associate Stanford Carmack have been unable to find the construction it supposeth me (acting as a dative impersonal) in English texts from the Early Modern period, so it may be that the Book of Mormon was innovative in its use of that phrase.11 It is also possible, however, that it supposeth me was used in the Early Modern period but simply hasn’t yet turned up in the textual record, perhaps because it was rare even then.12
In any case, it is noteworthy that the other two examples—it sorroweth me and it mattereth not—do indeed show up in Early Modern texts. If these commentators were unfamiliar with these primarily Early Modern constructions, it is a good bet that Joseph Smith would have been similarly oblivious to their archaic usage, especially considering his comparative lack of literary experience.
Conclusion
“Taken all together,” writes Skousen, “the Book of Mormon use of the dative impersonal is surprisingly extensive and wide ranging.”13 Only half of the 8 archaic constructions in the Book of Mormon show up in the Bible, and when they do they are comparatively sparse. For instance, the Book of Mormon uses variants of it grieveth me 8 times, while the Bible only uses it 2 times. Likewise, the Book of Mormon uses variants of if sufficeth me 10 times, while the Bible only uses it 1 time.
Did Joseph Smith really pick up on these obscure phrases and then considerably expand their variety and frequency in the Book of Mormon, while also supplying additional archaic types which were most likely rare or absent in his linguistic environment? While not strictly impossible, such a scenario seems unlikely.14 The Book of Mormon’s ranging use of the dative impersonal supports the theory that its English translation was revealed to Joseph Smith word for word by the gift and power of God.15
Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The Nature of the Original Language, Parts 3–4 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018), 1002–1014.
Royal Skousen, “The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2018): 81–110.
Stanford Carmack, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 11 (2014): 237–238.
Bible
Book of Mormon
- 1. The Book of Mormon has more than 50 examples of the dative impersonal, but not all of them have the archaic-th ending for the verb. Only those with the archaic verb form are included in this count
- 2. Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The Nature of the Original Language, Parts 3–4 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018), 1002.
- 3. Chart data partially derived from Skousen, The Nature of the Original Language, 1002–1013. Note that both texts have additional examples where the verb doesn’t have a -th ending or in which to or unto is inserted between the verb and the personal pronoun. Also, while the Bible only contains examples of “half the types of dative impersonal found in the Book of Mormon,” there are several examples in the Bible (using the verbs advantageth, becometh, liketh, pleaseth, and repenteth) that don’t show up in the Book of Mormon. Skousen, The Nature of the Original Language, 1013.
- 4. Note that this example is technically different from the rest because it does not have a pronoun. There are a few instances where the pronoun is present, but it is separated from the verb by a preposition (either to or unto). See 1 Nephi 6:3; Jacob 5:13; Ether 12:37.
- 5. Skousen, The Nature of the Original Language, 1002. One of the 8 constructions (it supposeth me) is currently unknown in any period of the English language outside its usage in the Book of Mormon.
- 6. Early Modern examples were derived from Skousen, The Nature of the Original Language, 1004–1005, 1010–1012.
- 7. These examples are provided in Stanford Carmack, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 11 (2014): 237.
- 8. Edward Spencer, “Notes on the Book of Mormon,” Methodist Review (January 1905): 36.
- 9. La Roy Sunderland, Mormonism Exposed (New York, NY: New York Watchman, 1842), 59.
- 10. See Skousen, The Nature of the Original Language, 1013.
- 11. See Skousen, The Nature of the Original Language, 1013.
- 12. It is important to understand that the number of English texts in the databases becomes increasingly limited as one looks further back in time. For example, there weren’t nearly as many texts published in the 1500s as there were in the 1800s, and it is likely that fewer of those that were published have been preserved and included in modern databases. This means that it is less significant for a textual feature to be absent in earlier databases, as the sampling sizes are much smaller there. This is an especially important factor to keep in mind when using Google N-Gram Viewer, which has limited textual data for earlier periods. See Stanford Carmack, “Pitfalls of the Ngram Viewer,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 187–210.
- 13. Skousen, The Nature of the Original Language, 1002. Or, as Carmack put it, “The presence of these impersonal verb phrases in the [Book of Mormon] is an indication of the historical range of the book’s language.” Carmack, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” 238.
- 14. As explained by Carmack, “syntax resists manipulation—conscious language use being primarily concerned with the content of expression, not the form. Since native-speaker linguistic knowledge is mostly tacit, the form of expression is largely the result of subconscious production. As a result, syntax is extremely difficult to fake and can provide strong evidence of authorial origins.” Stanford Carmack, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 14 (2015): 120.
- 15. For a helpful overview of this theory, see Royal Skousen, “The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2018): 81–110. For more studies which support this position, see Stanford Carmack, “A Comparison of the Book of Mormon’s Subordinate That Usage,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 50 (2022): 1–32; Stanford Carmack, “The Book of Mormon’s Complex Finite Cause Syntax,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 49 (2021): 113–136; Stanford Carmack, “Personal Relative Pronoun Usage in the Book of Mormon: An Important Authorship Diagnostic,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 49 (2021): 5–36; Stanford Carmack, “Pitfalls of the Ngram Viewer,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 187–210; Stanford Carmack, “Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 1–28; Stanford Carmack, “Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text?” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 28 (2018): 177–232; Stanford Carmack, “On Doctrine and Covenants Language and the 1833 Plot of Zion,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 26 (2017): 297–380; Stanford Carmack, “How Joseph Smith’s Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 25 (2017): 239–259; Stanford Carmack, “Barlow on Book of Mormon Language: An Examination of Some Strained Grammar” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 27 (2017): 185–196; Stanford Carmack, “The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 18 (2016): 109–137; Stanford Carmack, “The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 18 (2016): 79–108; Stanford Carmack, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 18 (2016): 41–61; Stanford Carmack, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon is Early Modern English,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 18 (2016): 33–40; Stanford Carmack, “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 13 (2015): 175–217; Stanford Carmack, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 14 (2015): 119–186; Stanford Carmack, “Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828),” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 15 (2015): 65–77; Stanford Carmack, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 11 (2014): 209–262.