Talk:Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon

Article Citations, Scope, and Linguistic Terms
The article needs citations. Who are the players in the debate on ancient vs modern authorship of the Book of Mormon? The best citation would be a source who connects chiasmus with ancient authorship. That seems to be the central point of this debate.

Developments to the article should keep the scope focused on chiasmus. Previously the article had ranged over topics of linguistic analysis, too broad for this article.

Developments should also use linguistic terms responsibly if making linguistic claims. I pulled the italicized sentence (below) because it was linguistically inane. "[R]hymes or meter" are not examples of "words;" "words" may mean morphemes or lexemes; what is a "remarkably intact" translation? Translation has broad effects across language structures (from the sounds of words to rhetorical structure...which would include chiasmus). A citation is needed that chiasmus evades these effects.

Because chiasmus relies, to an extent, on relationships between ideas or concepts, as well as on words (e.g. on rhymes or meter) it can survive translation remarkably intact, even if the translator is unaware of its presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divespluto (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)