Tweet
Just been perusing the Lusk Letter. Seems to me "Sor" could quite easily actually be "for"-it is a rather over exagerated formation of "F"-but then it would read "From Hell Mr Lusk FOR I send....." which at least makes some kind of sense, but is an awkward grammatical formation. What does anyone think?
-
-
The ' Sor ', as it is usually expressed for some reason, looks like ' Sur ', which is a simple phonetic mispelling of ' Sir '.
Sorry Kerrypn, but i cannot see your ' for ' in any logical context. ' For' , in the context you suggest, is a subordinating conjunction, and a comma placed after it serves no purpose.Last edited by Scorpio; 05-01-2011, 01:10 AM.SCORPIO -
"Mr. Lusk, Sir" certainly makes a lot more sense than "Mr. Lusk, For". The actual structuring of sentences in From Hell is pretty good, it's simply the grammatical errors that show up the most....
Cheers,
Adam.Comment
-
That certainly makes a lot more sense Thanks to both! I was actually debating whether it was a genuine error, but the phoenetic "sir" although possibly sarcastic given the letters content would make more sense.
Have any the letters been fingerprinted? I realise this wouldnt find the culprit but might tell us if the same hand sent more than one letter(but not necessarily if they were the Ripper)Comment
-
Personally I think it just reads "Sir" - and as far as I know no one read it as anything but "Sir" until Martin Fido transcribed it as "Sor" in 1987. I've tried to explain here how I think the misreading arose:
Comment
-
I agree with Chris Phillips that it reads “Sir“, and the old casebook thread he quoted is worth re-visiting.Best regards,
MariaComment
-
Hi Kerry,
It's an interesting thought just the same and would be worth more consideration if there wasn't so many other spelling errors within the "From Hell" note. Unlike the Goulston Street Graffiti which was spelt perfectly except for "Juwes", hence why it's caused so much debate over the years....
Cheers,
Adam.Comment
Comment