The word JUWES

[Bridewell]

Abberline also believed that Chapman/Klosowski was JtR, if you believe quotes attributed to him. Was Chapman at the top of society then?

Good point!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

RivkahChaya

My point about Warren consulting the Chief Rabbi, addressed a specific point made by moonbeggar (I think it was he).

I am entirely aware that the Chief Rabbi could only comment on such things as whether the spelling was a known Jewish term etc.

Also the fact that Abberline was placed on the scandal case is very worrying.

I too would like to comment further on that? As I have already posted: "Are we to take it that all the case a police officer investigates in his life are LINKED because of his personal involvement?"

So why should Abberline's involvement be "worrying"?

It's not even a logical deduction. It's at about the level of a child's first reader... when you haven't quite reached the difficult letters like XY and Z. Heaven help us!!

Phil H

[moonbegger]

Phil ,

Another Reference to the word Juwes in Print. As far as Knights goes , i must admit i have never been to good at ignoring evidence because it makes some people a little uncomfortable .. But i suppose people do it every day in all manner of situations .. so i respect your view and i agree that we should put most Knights suggestions aside .. but to sweep it all off the table seems a little extreme and non productive .

In addition to appearing in the Bible, the spelling of the word "Jews" as "Juwes" pops up in English Literature too, such as in the famous 14th C. work 'Piers Ploughman'. 'Piers Ploughman' is considered to be one of the great works of early English Literature. It has been published and re-published for over 600 years, including in the 19th Century.

moonbegger

[Sally]

Phil ,

Another Reference to the word Juwes in Print. As far as Knights goes , i must admit i have never been to good at ignoring evidence because it makes some a little uncomfortable .. But i suppose people do it every day in all manner of situations .. so i respect your view .



moonbegger

Moonbeggar, Phil is correct. Even if the spelling 'Juwes' occurs occasionally in Medieval or later documents, it isn't a standard, and it is difficult to see how any significance should be attributed to it.

So, the word may have been spelled by somebody in the 14th century in the same way as somebody later spelled it in 1888. So what? All it demonstrates is the power of phonetics in the absence of standardised spelling or lack of knowledge of the same.

[Errata]

If I recall correctly, Warren sought the advice of the Chief rabbi on the word/spelling and published a letter saying it was not known. [Somone might correct me or provide a reference.]

Phil H

From Warren's report:

"I may mention that so great was the feeling with regard to the Jews that on the 13th ulto. the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word "Jewes" on account of a newspaper asserting that this was Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. He added "in the present state of excitement it is dangerous to the safety of the poor Jews in the East [End] to allow such an assertion to remain uncontradicted. My community keenly appreciates your humane and vigilant action during this critical time."

[Phil H]

Thanks, errata - that is what I had in mind but not to hand.

Phil H

[Phil H]

As far as Knights goes , i must admit i have never been to good at ignoring evidence because it makes some people a little uncomfortable .. But i suppose people do it every day in all manner of situations .. so i respect your view and i agree that we should put most Knights suggestions aside .. but to sweep it all off the table seems a little extreme and non productive .

moonbegger

There is a well established and internationally accepted approach to such matters (and others). It is called the "historical method".

In this regard it is essentially about making clear your arguments for not accepting some piece of evidence, or alternatively wanting to use/rely on some information or evidence that is not usually accepted by others.

This is done by setting out your reasoning specifically, succinctly and clearly and in enough detail so that others can make a judgement. It is the subsequent "peer review" - the acceptance by others with sufficient knowledge to be able to judge - that determines whether what you have done is accepted or not. This is not a formal exercise, but basically if enough people agree with your reasoning you have convinced them.

I mentioned criteria earlier, and with respect to the issues that interest you, one might set out an approach - (say) that one would only accept as a useable "fact" information that could be found in at least two or three other independent sources (i.e. material that comes from writers that have not drawn on Knight or related books). this ensures that you are not engaging in "sophistry" - that is choosing only material or aguments that support your case and dismissing those which do not. That would be self-defeating (though it is much relied on on this site, I should say).

Hope this helps,

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

From Warren's report:

"... the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word "Jewes" on account of a newspaper asserting that this was Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. ..."

Ah. That makes total sense. I am often asked how to spell a Yiddish word, by someone who means how to, as one person put it "spell it in English."

For the record, there is no standardized transliteration of Yiddish for English speakers. For one thing, there are a number of dialects of Yiddish, and it would be as difficult as trying to come up with a full lexicon of standard transliterations for the many words that Brits and Americans pronounce very differently, into Hebrew characters. That's why you might see the same word rendered as both "schmooze," and "shmues."*

Also, "Jew," is not a Yiddish word, it's worth mentioning. The "J" sound doesn't even exist in Yiddish. The Yiddish word for a Jewish person is "Yid," pronounced usually a little more like "Yeed" than with a short "I."

*My spell-check is accepting "schmooze," but not "shmues"; however, "shmues" looks to me more like the way the word is actually pronounced, at least by the Yiddish speakers I talk to on a regular basis.

[RivkahChaya]

While we're at it, I'm sure the chief rabbi's intent was to deny that the spelling meant that the graffito must have been written by someone Jewish.

I don't think at the time there was any dispute that the word meant "Jews."

[Errata]

For the record, there is no standardized transliteration of Yiddish for English speakers. For one thing, there are a number of dialects of Yiddish, and it would be as difficult as trying to come up with a full lexicon of standard transliterations for the many words that Brits and Americans pronounce very differently, into Hebrew characters. That's why you might see the same word rendered as both "schmooze," and "shmues."*

If we're going to be blunt, I don't think there is a standardized spelling of Yiddish in Hebrew. Especially between the three Eastern dialects of Yiddish, but since in reality they were pretty much down to two in 1888, and for all intents and purposes we are down to one now, the dialect issue is something of a moot point. If I recall, almost everyone spoke Polyish, but theater and literature were in Litvish.

[RivkahChaya]

If we're going to be blunt, I don't think there is a standardized spelling of Yiddish in Hebrew. Especially between the three Eastern dialects of Yiddish, but since in reality they were pretty much down to two in 1888, and for all intents and purposes we are down to one now, the dialect issue is something of a moot point. If I recall, almost everyone spoke Polyish, but theater and literature were in Litvish.

Not standard spellings, per se, but at least conventional spellings, at least of words derived from Hebrew. Then there's the unvoweled text factor, so how you pronounce the same written word, and how I pronounce it might be different-- I'm not disagreeing with you; there're just fewer options when you sound a word out in the Hebrew alphabet, which is why your written Yiddish, from Riga, makes sense to me, in Berlin, even though our accents might be very different.

All the rest of you don't have to listen, but between you and me, Errata, there are still dialects, and maybe you wouldn't believe it, but as recently as 2002, I heard two people get into an argument over the use of the dative or accusative 2nd person pronoun in "I love you" (איך האָב דיר ליב [ich hob dir lieb] vs. איך האָב דיך ליב [ich hob dich lieb]); finally, someone suggested that if you use the Americanized "verbed noun," "ליבע," for "איך ליבע דיך (ich libe dich)," then of course you use the accusative form.

These were both second generation Americans who were first-language Yiddish speakers, who grew up mostly in the same city. Their parents were originally from different countries-- or, at any rate, their mothers were.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[moonbegger]

As far as Knights goes , i must admit i have never been to good at ignoring evidence because it makes some people a little uncomfortable .. But i suppose people do it every day in all manner of situations .. so i respect your view and i agree that we should put most Knights suggestions aside .. but to sweep it all off the table seems a little extreme and non productive .

moonbegger

There is a well established and internationally accepted approach to such matters (and others). It is called the "historical method".

In this regard it is essentially about making clear your arguments for not accepting some piece of evidence, or alternatively wanting to use/rely on some information or evidence that is not usually accepted by others.

This is done by setting out your reasoning specifically, succinctly and clearly and in enough detail so that others can make a judgement. It is the subsequent "peer review" - the acceptance by others with sufficient knowledge to be able to judge - that determines whether what you have done is accepted or not. This is not a formal exercise, but basically if enough people agree with your reasoning you have convinced them.

I mentioned criteria earlier, and with respect to the issues that interest you, one might set out an approach - (say) that one would only accept as a useable "fact" information that could be found in at least two or three other independent sources (i.e. material that comes from writers that have not drawn on Knight or related books). this ensures that you are not engaging in "sophistry" - that is choosing only material or aguments that support your case and dismissing those which do not. That would be self-defeating (though it is much relied on on this site, I should say).

Hope this helps,

Phil H

Thank you very much Phil for your wise words .. Much appreciated . I will do my best .

moonbegger .

[martin wilson]

I like to play around with the GSG as a word puzzle sometimes,but I don't think it has anything to do with Catherine's murder.
Still,in that spirit, googling TJTWB Hebrew gets me;

I am a stranger in the earth,conceal not from me thy commandments.
Psalm CXIX.

Which is odd because I later found there is no J in the alefbet, so I think google has given me the nearest, no doubt Rivkah can help me out.

But was the 'message' if any,in the oddly capitalised letters and any thoughts on what it might mean?

Stirring for half a century now.
All the best.

[RivkahChaya]

I like to play around with the GSG as a word puzzle sometimes,but I don't think it has anything to do with Catherine's murder.
Still,in that spirit, googling TJTWB Hebrew gets me;

I am a stranger in the earth,conceal not from me thy commandments.
Psalm CXIX.

Which is odd because I later found there is no J in the alefbet, so I think google has given me the nearest, no doubt Rivkah can help me out.

But was the 'message' if any,in the oddly capitalised letters and any thoughts on what it might mean?

I'm not sure what it did. T could correspond to either ת ("tav") or ט ("tet"). J would correspond to י ("yudh"), which is pronounced like "Y" when it is a consonant; sometimes it is pronounced like the vowel "I," or a long "E." W probably corresponds to ו ("vav"), which is another consonant/vowel, and is a V/U/O, but never makes the "W" sound, which doesn't exist in Hebrew. B is ב ("beit").

The line you quotes is this in Hebrew: .גֵּר אָנֹכִי בָאָרֶץ; אַל-תַּסְתֵּר מִמֶּנִּי, מצוטיך (ger anochi baaretz; el-taser mimeini mitzvotecha.)

A more literal translation is "I'm a visitor in this land; don't deny me your commandments." The verb for "deny" carries an implication that to do so would be to go back on an earlier promise. Also, "I am a visitor in this land," could suggest that the speaker is traveling, and will be in other places before going home, which is why you sometimes see it translated as "sojourner."

This psalm has designated sections, labeled with letters (which are also numbers), but not the ones you entered. I check numerology, and I can't get 119 out of those Hebrew letters, so I don't know why you would be taken to that psalm.

Finally I googled the same thing you did. TJTWB as a letter sequence appears in a Hebrew grammar that was someone's dissertation, and now exists as a digital book. It includes some passages from psalms, as examples, but also some from non-scripture sources. The letter sequence is irrelevant; it's just there as a transliteration of a vowel root and particular kind of noun-forming prefix. I should have recognized it. They always begin with that letter, and have that vowel pattern. But this is an old book. A newer one would use TITVB. This word means "substitute."

[Krinoid]

.
In what way is it "worrying" that an experienced and capable detective was involved in two high profile crime enquiries? It's quite usual, even today.

Regards, Bridewell.

His main patch and expertise seems to be the east end.