This post is a summary of the article “Liahona: ‘Prepared of the Lord, a Compass’” by Calvin D. Tolman in Volume 51 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship.
An introduction to the Interpreting Interpreter series is available at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-on-abstracting-thought/.
The Takeaway
Tolman presents a fresh translation of the word Liahona, which he translates as “a vessel prepared of the Lord.” That translation arguably aligns with the interpretation provided in the Book of Mormon, and though parts of it aren’t based in known Hebrew usage, he posits a path through which it might have been present in the Hebrew of Lehi’s day.
The Summary
In this article, Calvin D. Tolman conducts a linguistic exploration of the term Liahona, presenting his own interpretation based on both ancient Hebrew usage and conjectural changes from Proto-Semitic. While agreeing with previous commentators that the segment iah corresponds to “the Lord”, Tolman provides two unique contributions: 1) interpretation of l-as a prefix designating production or authorship (as opposed to a prefix meaning “to”), and 2) interpretation of -ona as *Ɂōnâ, with the proposed meaning of “vessel” based on similar terms in other Semitic languages. This interpretation appears to be the closest available match to the meaning provided in Alma 37:38, of “a compass; and the Lord prepared it.”
In presenting this view, Tolman also reviews interpretations that have been previously proposed, explaining why he doesn’t accept them. His review includes:
- An interpretation by Reynolds and Sjodahl, where they interpret the word as “To God is light”, based on the Hebrew name for the Egyptian “City of the Sun” (or “On”). Tolman declines this interpretation, as he does not see a compelling explanation for Liahona’s final “a”.
- A proposal by Jonathan Curci for the meaning “to Yahweh is the whither”, based on the Hebrew adverb ʔā́nāh meaning “where” or “whither”. Tolman sees issues with aligning the pronunciation of that word with what we see in Liahona, as well as with using an adverb in place of the concrete noun “compass”.
- Matthew Bowen’s interpretation of “to Yahweh, look!”, based on a mixed-language construction from Hebrew and Egyptian, derived from the Egyptian verb Ɂinw (perhaps pronounced “*-naw”). Tolman objects to the proposed vowel shift, the semantic mismatch between the imperative statement “look!” with the concrete noun “compass”, and the reliance on Egyptian, as Tolman’s view is that the original language of the Book of Mormon was Hebrew.
- Loren Spendlove’s proposal of “To Jehovah!”, which interprets the final -na as a Hebrew particle adding emphasis, entreaty, or exhortation. Tolman here takes similar issue with the use of a particle in place of the Book of Mormon’s proposed concrete noun.
Tolman then discusses how he breaks the word Liahona into segments, which he does based on Hebrew grammar rather than pronunciation, focusing on his selection of the second segment as -iah- (rather than -iaho-). For Tolman, the name Yāh can easily stand alone in referring to the Lord (as it does at various points in the Bible), and it allows Tolman to preserve the final segment as *ʔona (with the crook symbol representing a glottal stop—imagine a frog performing a split-second jump into your throat after you say “Liah”).
This leads Tolman to the word’s first letter, l-, or Lamed, a prefix that has, in one assessment, 26 nuanced definitions. Though “to, toward” is the first of these definitions, Tolman prefers an alternative, “of, by”, as used in the phrase “of God” in Genesis 14:19. He views the term as signifying “the agent or originator” of an action or object (e.g., Psalms “of David”, l-dāwid). As Tolman frames it, the phrase l-Yāh- would indicate that God is the originator of the object to which the phrase is attached. He sees this as aligning well with both Nephi’s and Alma’s indication that the compass was “prepared of the Lord”. The Lamed prefix is arguably used in this way in a number of extra-biblical sources, though it requires assuming that the prefix is “subjective” (i.e., the “subjective genitive”; the word “genitive” is a linguistic term indicating a connection with nouns or pronouns)—in the case of l-Yāh, this would mean God is the subject of the phrase rather than the possessor (possessive genitive) or the object (objective genitive).
But the bulk of Tolman’s task is building a case for the final segment, *Ɂōnâ. Though not found in the Hebrew Bible, and having a modern Hebrew meaning with no likely connection to the Liahona (“deed of purchase”), it’s possible that the word existed anciently but has since been lost to time. Tolman first works backwards from *Ɂōnâ to try to identify what that word might have looked like in Proto-Semitic (*ʔunaw or *ʔunáy, with ō descending from a u, and the weak –y or -w consonant being dropped, as with the change from Śaráy to Śarâ”; page 227)). He then looks for potential cognates of those Proto-Semitic words in other Semitic languages, including Akkadian (unū, with a stem, únūt-, suggesting merchandise, vessels, or belongings), Aramaic (m’ny’, a cognate of the Akkadian únūte which is generally translated as “vessels”, and with the stem Ɂnay at its core), and several cognates with the Aramaic word, including Canaanite (anayi, meaning “ship”), Ugaritic (Ɂny, “ship”), Arabic (ɁināɁ or Ɂny, “eating dish”), and Hebrew itself (Ɂŏnî and Ɂŏnîyâ, “ship”, or Ɂny “to grasp, contain”). Tolman suggests that this word may have developed into *Ɂōnâ, particularly in the Northern Kingdom, closer to Aramaic speakers, whereas it might have been replaced by the word klî (“article, utensil, vessel”) in the Southern Kingdom.
Tolman thus sees “vessel”, a portable metal object, as the most likely meaning of the reconstructed word *Ɂōnâ, a meaning he sees as a much closer match for “compass” than previous proposals (particularly if the Book of Mormon’s meaning of compass is “to encircle,” though Tolman doesn’t explore this). He explains the difference between “vessel” and “compass” by appealing to a distinction between translation and interpretion–translations from one language to another give us a literal meaning, but they often don’t carry the cultural intent behind it. (An example that comes to mind is a word from Hawaiian Pidgin: dakine. Its literal meaning is “thing,” but context usually delivers a more specific interpretation.) To truly understand what the word means requires an interpretation, which Alma himself provides as “a compass—and the Lord prepared it.” Though Tolman admits that his reconstruction is complex, he reminds us why we should remain open to that complexity:
“Languages are always changing both phonetically and semantically. Some words in a language may last for thousands of years, while others may last a century or two or even a few decades before passing out of favor…Etymological explanations, comparative linguistics and philological arguments are very complicated. There are no easy answers, and conclusions are always tentative.”
The Reflection
Tolman presents some intriguing possibilities here, and ones that give new life to the interpretation provided by Alma for the term Liahona. After several decades of interpretations that assiduously avoided Alma’s gloss of “compass,” one could wonder if there was any path to validity for the Book of Mormon’s stated interpretation. Tolman essentially answers: yes, there is a path, but it requires taking the road less traveled—interpreting l- “of, by” as subjective genitive instead of “to,” where the name becomes the object of the preposition. The interpretive term “compass” relies on a cultural interpretation to close the semantic gap between Semitic “vessel” and Book of Mormon “compass.” This will be enough for some to dismiss it, but I see it as fitting for a book (and an object) that provides few easy answers for those attempting to understand its origins.
I probably should add a couple of sources to justify what I have just said:
P. Joüon & T. Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed., corr., §16 f 1.
Robert F. Smith, Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon and Other Studies (Deep Forest Green Books, 2020), online at https://books.google.com/books?id=W-kUEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22egyptianisms+in+the+book+of+mormon%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPm5vS8JXzAhVbCjQIHVibAsIQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=%22egyptianisms%20in%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%22&f=false .
Calvin Tolman’s proposed etymology is indeed clever, the only drawback being his reaching outside the known biblical Hebrew lexicon, when a quite acceptable Hebrew word is readily available:
Everyone, including Tolman, seems to go along with the obvious first two segments of Liahona. I will just say this about that: The Hebrew pataḥ-vowel following initial lamed (Deut 14:1, Ps 136:1 לַיהוָה laYHWH) creates the diphthong -ay- as used in the Deseret Alphabet pronunciation of Liahona ??????? (laɪæhoʊnæ).
A look in BDB provides us with the present active participals of the verb הָנָח ḥānâ, “to pitch (tent), encamp, dwell” (cf. cognate ancient Egyptian hn “tent”): Ex 18:5 חֹנֶה ḥōnê “he was encamped”; ψ 34:8 “he encamps”; 2 Sam 23:13 חֹנָה ḥōnâ “was encamped” = 1 Chr 11:15 “was encamped”; pl. Ex 14:9 חֹנִים ḥōnîm “camped, encamping” + 11 times; Nah 3:17 חוֹנִים “they camp, they are settling”; yiqtol prefix conj: Num 2:2 יַחֲנוּ yaḥănû “they shall pitch [their tents].”
Thus, Book of Mormon Liahona is most likely Hebrew לַיָהּ +חֹנָה > *la-Yā-ḥōnâ “Encamping for the Lord,” in which the Hebrew -heh- is assimilated to the Hebrew letter -ḥet-. The law of parsimony (Occam’s razor) doesn’t prove this to be the best etymology, but it is the likeliest of all the proposals thus far made.
This applies particularly well to a group which is reenacting Exodus motifs in great detail.
Thanks for your comments. You say it is a drawback to go outside the known biblical lexicon. The reason for going outside the lexicon is that I determined that there was no acceptable noun in the lexicon that could describe a round ball made of fine brass, and it was called a director due to the two spindles, one of which pointed the way they should go in the wilderness. I suggest that the interpretation of the Liahona as compass was made by Joseph Smith during the translation process. Both Alma and Mormon knew what it was, since it was in their possession. There was no need to explain what the word Liahona meant; it was part of their culture.
Early in the paper, I point out that the Liahona should not be analyzed by the English pronunciation (see p. 118). The first syllable in not lai-, as indicated in the Deseret Alphabet, and in modern English pronunciation. The second letter -i- in the Deseret Alphabet is pronounced as a long vowel, and due to the Great Vowel Shift it is the diphthong -ay. The Hebrew interpretation identifies the first letter as the inseparable preposition l-. The second letter -i- represents Hebrew Yod or y, and is the first consonant of the short form of the name of the Lord, -iah = Yāh. The prefixed lamed in this case has no vowel, since the second letter is the consonant y followed by a vowel, l-Yāh. The example you give of the l- preposition having the vowel a (pataḥ) before YHWH, laYHWH, reflects the Masoretic vocalization of the Lord’s name as Ɂăḏōnāi that would require the a vowel before the aleph Ɂ, as in laɁḏōnāi (see footnote 39). Your conclusion that la-Yā- are the first two syllables is not congruent with the letters in Liahona. The first letter l has no vowel a; and since the -i- is consonantal yod, the first letter in the divine name Yāh, which you identify, then there cannot be a vowel a after the l.
Your suggestion that ḥōnâ, the feminine singular participle, “was encamped” has the required phonemes for the last part of the name has some problems. The participle ḥōnâ has to be associated with a feminine noun; in 2 Sam 23:13 the construct feminine noun is ḥayyaṯ “troop, band” of Philistines. The masculine singular participle is ḥōneh that requires the association of a masculine noun or pronoun (Exodus 18:5; Psalm 34:8). Where or what is the feminine noun or pronoun that is associated with ḥōnâ to create the semantic context to form the word Liahona? The name Yāh is masculine, so the required participle associated with him should by ḥōneh not ḥōnâ. If the translation for Liahona is “encamping for the Lord,” then “encamping” should be plural ḥōnîm, (see Ex 14:9; Num 2:3, 5, 27; 1 Sam 26:5; 29:1). The whole Lehite and Ishmaelite families were camping and living in tents, thus a plurality.
The bigger issue is a semantic one. Lehi found “a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness” (1 Nephi 16:10). What should they call or name it? The chosen name should reflect either its form, shape or its function. They called it a ball due to its shape (1 Nephi 16:10, 16, 26, 27, 28, 30; 2 Nephi 5:12; Mosiah 1:16; Alma 37:38). They called it a director due to its function (Mosiah 1:16; Alma 27:38, 45). The translation in the Book of Mormon text for this instrument is “a compass” (1 Nephi 18:12, 21; 2 Nephi 5:12; Alma 37:38, 43, 44). When the Book of Mormon text calls it a compass, there is an acknowledgement that the Lord prepared it, that is, he was the agent who produced it (1 Nephi 18:12; 2 Nephi 5:12; Mosiah 1:16; Alma 37:38). The Book of Mormon text gives us the interpretation of Liahona, that is, the Lord prepared a compass. I go to great lengths (pages 220-226) in my paper to justify the interpretation of l-Yāh as a Hebrew expression where the preposition l- denotes that Yāh “the Lord” is the agent (a subjective genitive interpretation of the phrase) that produces (prepares) the compass or -ona. The semantic concept of pitching tents or encamping ḥōnâ has no semantic relationship with what is described in the Book of Mormon concerning the brass ball with spindles.
It is true that the Massoretes developed a vocalic system a thousand years after Lehi, in which they read the Tetragrammaton יהוה variously as ´adonai, shema´, and ´elohim. However, since the Lehites only had a copy of the Holy Scriptures in ancient Egyptian (as Hugh Nibley, John Tvedtnes, and I have long maintained ), it is not clear just what rules of grammar were followed by them – even though they were Hebrew speakers. They very likely transliterated Hebrew names into Egyptian when engraving the plates.
Still, even though your points are well taken, I would only amend my suggested etymology to the masculine form, *layāḥōnê “Encamping for Yah,” with ḥōnê, “encamps” (Psalm 34:8 [KJV 34:7] “the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them”; 53:6 [KJV 53:5]; Exodus 18:5). As Brant Gardner has said: “Even if we posit Hebraisms, we have to posit less than linguistic accuracy in the rendition of phonemes.”
L-yaho-na! engraved on the compass or ball? This would suffice as a substantive as well.