The Lusk Letter - Swanson's Transcription

[lynn cates]

translation of intent

Hello Chris. I believe that "Sir" was intended as a translation of the author's intent. (Free translation; "light editing." Cf. "Juwes" and "Jews.")

That Begg et al and Sugden use "Sor" is a tribute, I think, to their accuracy and scholarliness.

The best.
LC

[Chris]

Hello Chris. I believe that "Sir" was intended as a translation of the author's intent. (Free translation; "light editing." Cf. "Juwes" and "Jews.")

I don't think that's the explanation in the case of the Ripper books, because without exception they reproduce misspellings elsewhere in the letter.

As for the contemporary press reports, some correct the misspelt words and some don't. But none that I can find reads this word as "Sor".

[Chris]

Actually, with the help of Google Books, the earliest version I can find with "Sor" is that in Martin Fido's 1987 book (the centenary offerings by Begg and Howells/Skinner have "Sir"). So perhaps he is the originator.

[perrymason]

Im unclear on what basis Chris you are challenging what can be confirmed by simply looking at the reproduced letter itself. Clearly the second letter isnt "I".

Regards

[Chris]

Im unclear on what basis Chris you are challenging what can be confirmed by simply looking at the reproduced letter itself. Clearly the second letter isnt "I".

Well, that's precisely what people differ about - whether the second letter is an 'i' or an 'o'. There's no "clearly" about it.

Anyhow, I've already explained my interpretation in detail above:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=104229&postcount=53

[perrymason]

Well, that's precisely what people differ about - whether the second letter is an 'i' or an 'o'. There's no "clearly" about it.

Anyhow, I've already explained my interpretation in detail above:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...9&postcount=53

I had seen your post. I guess your argument depends on the shape of his r's and we have other examples of that character in the letter....at the bottom of the page in "Mishter". The r is just like I just typed it now....the second crudely drawn r in my insert....as in "longer", and as he does in "for". Granted there are some r's like the one in "From" that seem less obvious...perhaps because he finishes the previous letter halfway up the character, but even so, it clearly seems to be an "r" shape that is next.

Best regards

[smezenen]

I will have to agree with PM here the leter is clearly an O but my reason for agreeing is not becouse of the way he writes his R's but rather his I's and O's.
If you study all the obviouse lower case I's and O's in this missive you will see all the I's end on a down stroke at the bottom of the letter all of the O's end at the top of the letter on an upstroke. The debated letter in this missive ends on an upstroke and at the top of the letter.

[Chris]

smezenen

I think you've misunderstood what's being suggested. The interpretation hinges on how the word should be divided up into individual letters.

I've tried to sketch below the two alternative interpretations:
Sir[upstroke]

Sor

[lynn cates]

dot

Hello Chris. So in the first, would the "i" be undotted or would the curl function as the dot? (I actually know a few who write this way.)

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

The 'i' would be undotted.

[perrymason]

Again.... youve assumed the shape of the lowercase "r" and its flatly contradicted by several other "r's" in the rest of the writing.

Unless your contention is that he uses both types of "r's" arbitrarily.

Best regards

[Chris]

perrymason

Obviously, the first 'r' in 'prasarved' is formed quite differently from other examples of the letter 'r' in the letter - but very similarly to what I interpret as the 'r' of "Sir".

But I've already discussed precisely this point, and given examples to illustrate it. And I've already directed you to the post where I discussed it:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=104229&postcount=53

[smezenen]

smezenen

I think you've misunderstood what's being suggested. The interpretation hinges on how the word should be divided up into individual letters.

Hello Chris,
I was not misunderstood. Your illustrations are very good. But this is what I see, since there is not a break in the line before the upstoke the intent seems to be a continuation of the formation of the letter. I also submit that if the letter is a lower case i then it would be the only one in the entire letter that is not dotted. I have attached (I HOPE) and Illustration of my own showing all of the words in the letter containing a lower case i. I have shaded the tittle (dot) of each i. The auther of this letter habitualy dotted his i's further indicating that the word in question is SOR and not SIR.

[Chris]

smezenen

Agreed that the 'i' would not be dotted and the others are. But as I've said, I think that alone would be a very unsafe basis on which to prefer the strange reading "Sor" rather than "Sir" - which would of course be the normal word to put there.

Regarding the upstroke, there are several of these in the letter, of which I gave examples in the previous post I keep referring to. They are all written continuously without a preceding break, and the effect is always to add an additional stroke to what would normally be written - just as in the "Sir" interpretation I've illustrated.

[smezenen]

smezenen

Agreed that the 'i' would not be dotted and the others are. But as I've said, I think that alone would be a very unsafe basis on which to prefer the strange reading "Sor" rather than "Sir" - which would of course be the normal word to put there.

Regarding the upstroke, there are several of these in the letter, of which I gave examples in the previous post I keep referring to. They are all written continuously without a preceding break, and the effect is always to add an additional stroke to what would normally be written - just as in the "Sir" interpretation I've illustrated.

Chris,
I have seen you'r other post. The upstroke I spoke of was in the middle of the word and pertained to one letter not at the end of the word like the ones you point out. The writer does display a curiouse upstoke at the end of some words that would be a unique identifer for this individual when compairing to other writings. The problem I see with using the upstoke at the end of the word in order to identify the shape of the "r" is that the author was not habitual with his use of the upstoke, in other words he didnt use it at the end of every word only a few, he uses it a the end of a sentence and in the middle, he uses it after the letters M,N,T, and U. There is no pattern I can see to his use of this upstoke making it random. If we break this down by the numbers, not counting the word in question, we see that he used the upstroke at the end of 9 of 57 words thats 15.78%. He used a tittle on 12 of 12 lowercase i's in the letter thats 100%. I would say that basing the correct letter of the word in question on the tittles is 85% stronger than basing it on upstrokes at the end of words.