Talk:Nahom

message: =====The letters 'om' in Nahom may actually be a suffix=====
One critical position is that the last two letters in the name Nahom are a suffix, and that the resulting root would actually be NH rather than NHM. This position is supported by the presence of a number of place names in the New World portion of the Book of Mormon narrative that end with the letters "om". reference  /reference
After checking this source, it was obvious to me that (looking past the shoddy scholarship and obvious bias) this was not a source fit for citing in Wikipedia.  It does  not meet wikipedia's verifiability standards because it's a self published source (angel-fire) without an author who is a professional researcher in a relevant field (sean's faith page?). gdavies
=====There are multiple possible pronunciations for NHM other than Nahom=====
After wrestling with this paragraph for a considerable time I've opted to greatly reduce unless reliable evidence can be cited illustrating any serious critical argument along these lines.
"The current pronunciation of the location and tribal area is said to be Nihm rather than Nahom. Some critics state that it is extremely unlikely that the tribe associated with the place name changed its pronunciation. It is also stated that NHM ought to be pronounced Nachom rather than Nahom, which results in the name meaning something other than "to be sorry." Referring to the mourning associated with the burial of Ishmael, it is suggested that it would have been unlikely for the NHM tribe to "name themselves after a passing-through traveler who died there centuries later." referenced  The apparent contradiction of why the name ought to be pronounced Nachom while stating that the tribal pronunciation has not changed from Nihm is not addressed. /reference"
This source, as stated above is not fit for Wikipedia, but it is possible that these claims may be made in other places.  Just to clarify for anyone who is interested, the Book of Mormon record makes it clear that Nahom was named prior to Lehi's party's arrival ("the place which was called Nahom", as opposed to "the place which they did call Nahom"). Further, one of the largest arabic burial sites is found in close proximity to the present location of Nihm, which accounts for the name of the site.  It's entirely possible (and very probable) that the pronunciation of NHM in this area would change over the centuries (and perhaps among those who kept the record it changed as well).  
This paragraph also mentions a variant of "nachom."  This is merely a variant of the inner consonant between "h" sounds found in biblical Hebrew (the one they spell as 'ch' not having an English equivalent). The cited article neglects this fact, fails to mention anyone who actually thinks it should be said this way and is representative of extremely poor and biased scholarship. gdavies 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the following paragraphs...

message: After wrestling with this paragraph for a considerable time I've opted to greatly reduce unless reliable evidence can be cited illustrating any serious critical argument along these lines.
"The current pronunciation of the location and tribal area is said to be Nihm rather than Nahom. Some critics state that it is extremely unlikely that the tribe associated with the place name changed its pronunciation. It is also stated that NHM ought to be pronounced Nachom rather than Nahom, which results in the name meaning something other than "to be sorry." Referring to the mourning associated with the burial of Ishmael, it is suggested that it would have been unlikely for the NHM tribe to "name themselves after a passing-through traveler who died there centuries later." referenced  The apparent contradiction of why the name ought to be pronounced Nachom while stating that the tribal pronunciation has not changed from Nihm is not addressed. /reference"
This source, as stated above is not fit for Wikipedia, but it is possible that these claims may be made in other places.  Just to clarify for anyone who is interested, the Book of Mormon record makes it clear that Nahom was named prior to Lehi's party's arrival ("the place which was called Nahom", as opposed to "the place which they did call Nahom"). Further, one of the largest arabic burial sites is found in close proximity to the present location of Nihm, which accounts for the name of the site.  It's entirely possible (and very probable) that the pronunciation of NHM in this area would change over the centuries (and perhaps among those who kept the record it changed as well).  
This paragraph also mentions a variant of "nachom."  This is merely a variant of the inner consonant between "h" sounds found in biblical Hebrew (the one they spell as 'ch' not having an English equivalent). The cited article neglects this fact, fails to mention anyone who actually thinks it should be said this way and is representative of extremely poor and biased scholarship. gdavies 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There are multiple possible pronunciations for NHM other than ''Nahom''

message: Referring the the early work of Lynn Hilton from 1976, several critics state that NHM is only one of several sites that have been proposed by LDS scholars as Nahom. It is suggested that this casts doubt upon NHM being the only place now accepted by LDS scholars as the true location of Nahom. reference: Tanner (1996), p. 181. "Actually, there are two different locations which Mormon scholars have set forth as the 'place which was called Nahom.' . . . Nehhm is over 350 miles from Al Qunfudhah!" /reference; second reference,  /reference
Reference is to a Tanner? and also from the same angelfire page. The angelfire source isn't reliable or scholarly and should not be included. The Tanner's statement is vague and really irrelevant. The title itself is POV, I opted to shorten the paragraph to make it more direct while eliminating this source.  Please elaborate or add sources/content! Thanks! gdavies 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why have multiple sites been proposed for Nahom?

message: Currently, a statement is sourced to Gerald and Sandra Tanner regarding the "mismatch" of the modern word and that found in the Book of Mormon. 
"only three of the five letters in Nehhm agree with the spelling Nahom. The second letter in Nehhm is e rather than a, and the fourth letter is h instead of o. The variant spellings of Nehem, Nehm, Nihm, Nahm and Naham, do not really help to solve the problem.”
This statement is indicative of an embarrassing lack of Hebrew understanding. Counting letters and discounting the facts of historical semitic languages (that they did not have vowels) really doesn't prove anything and should not belong in this article.  The Tanner's cannot be considered an authority in this field and this "argument" certainly does not deserve any attention in this setting. gdavies 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vowel Variance

message: As you can see, it is very difficult to find good scholarly criticism of the Nahom/NHM connection in reliable printed sources. I was looking for a more credible source for the David Wright material on the "-om" possibly being a suffix. The problem is that Dr. Wright discusses all of this in a great level of detail in a chat group (which cannot be used as a source) and the only place I could find that linked to it or discussed it was the "seanie" page. I'll continue to search and see if Wright has published this material somewhere. I do agree that the "seanie" page is quite unscholarly however - I was simply trying to find as many criticisms as possible. The Tanner criticism, although it does indicate their total ignorance of Hebrew, does exist in a published source. Bochica 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, thanks for your help on this one.  I know there is limited scholarly discussion on this and other words (and their respective etymologies) outside the Mormon academic community, but I haven't yet found a reliable source. I might also point out that although the Tanner's are published, that does not necessarily merit their inclusion (i.e. they are far from meeting Wikipedia's standards for sourcing). I believe I replaced most of the information with general (yet unsourced) statements regarding common criticisms. gdavies 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Referring to the the early work of Lynn Hilton from 1976, some have argued that several sites have been proposed by LDS scholars as Nahom. It is suggested that this casts doubt upon NHM being the only place now accepted by LDS scholars as the true location of Nahom.
without sources this section is really unimportant, but if we can find some I think we can make it work. gdavies 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of critical sources

message: Removing this section until we can get it sourced. I personally don't feel it's worthy of mention (esp. without sources). I understand this claim has been made by the Tanner's, but has no real validity. The Hilton's conjectured a location in Arabia (from general clues in the Book of Mormon) but (from what I understand, and like I said I need a source for this) they agreed with the new location immediately after evidence surfaced. The location is currently accepted by all LDS scholars I know of... 
:Referring to the the early work of Lynn Hilton from 1976, some have argued that several sites have been proposed by LDS scholars as Nahom. It is suggested that this casts doubt upon NHM being the only place now accepted by LDS scholars as the true location of Nahom.
without sources this section is really unimportant, but if we can find some I think we can make it work. gdavies 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple sites proposed for Nahom?

message: I just made some minor edits plus did some restructuring.  I think that I improved the article thereby, but I think that there needs to be further restructuring and rewriting.  I can see that these things need to be done, but I don't see how to do it at this time.  I don't see major problems, but they are more than minor issues; somewhere in between.  Someone please look over the article and see if you can fix it.  Thanks.  Val42 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nahom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909061253/http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2464 to http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2464
*Added  tag to http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=471
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The link to another wikipedia page references John Welch. Archaelogist or anthropologist? Social Archaeologist isn't the same thing as anthropologist? Furthermore, if John Welch is the implied reference, it would be "a" LDS anthropologist not "some".
https://archaeologysfu.ca/john-welch/ 201.149.6.36 (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS Archaeologists?