The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[Tom_Wescott]

Or as has already been pointed out, he could have just said "I killed 2 tonight" and not gone with an acronym, which would have made little to no sense sense since acronyms as common substitutions didn't come into play until the mid-20th century.

If you choose to accept everything Don Souden says as gospel, then there were no acronyms in the Victorian era. My research has taught me different, but to each his own.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Paul Emmett writes:
"If they can't figure it out, he can see himself as way too smart for them."

Yes, Paul, and - not to forget - for himself too...

I always thought that if he did write that message, he did so in order to be recognized. Therefore, to muddle the possibilities for recognition seems not a wise thing to do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think that JTR, who I believe chalked the graffito, was necessarily into directness. The last part of the message with its double negatives isn't direct, so why would the first part, with "misspelling" or initials, have to be? If they can't figure it out, he can see himself as way too clever for them.

We are both talking about Jack the Ripper, aren't we, Paul? For a moment there, I thought you'd confused him with The Riddler

[Ally]

Tom,

I don't take what "don souden" says as gospel, I take what linguistic analysis says as gospel. In addition I didn't say that there were no acronyms in Victorian times, I said they were not in common usage and therefore not in the common mindset. Linguistic analysis is as precise a field as forensics. Acronyms were not in common usage until the mid-20th century. That's just linguistic fact like saying LOL wasn't in common usage until the 21st century. Language has identifiable time period markers. You cannot say that no one would ever have strung LOL together in a message written in 1945 but you can say it is hardly likely that they would have.

[Suzi]

Hi all-
I try not to get too involved in the GSG but I can't help but think that it'd been there for ages and was just i) An anti Jewish comment written for no apparent reason ii) An anti Jewish comment written for a reason iii) Something written on the night for a reason (with the apron of course as something to keep the boys in blue guessing) or iv) The spelling (see attachment above) was taken down wrongly by the police before Chas W and his sponge- and did say Jews quite clearly in a badly ...maybe hurried hand by a scurrying chalk carrying killer! Hmmmmmm

I always think that if someone's not blamed for nothing then they must be blamed for something!

Suzi x

[Tom_Wescott]

I try not to get too involved in the GSG but I can't help but think that it'd been there for ages

The predominantly Jewish residents of the building who walked past the wall daily would have begged to differ.

Ally,

The word 'boss' was all but unheard of in England at the time, and yet...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Actually the etymology of boss dates from the early 17th century so it had 250 years to permeate into the common language.

Thanks for playing, try again.

[perrymason]

"I always think that if someone's not blamed for nothing then they must be blamed for something!"

Suzi x[/QUOTE]

Thats my feelings on the matter too....I think thats often delivered sarcastically as well....no, it couldnt have been you that wasnt there when you said youd be...must have been someone else.

Cheers Suz.

[paul emmett]

Sam, in all seriousness, why do you feel that JTR MUST be direct, that he might not have enjoyed funny subtle little games?

[sdreid]

The clues are the means that will now be blamed for nothing.

[Tom_Wescott]

Okay, fair enough. We'll use your source, wikipedia:

The early Christians in Rome used the image of a fish as a symbol for Jesus in part because of an acronym—fish in Greek is ΙΧΘΥΣ (ichthys), which was said to stand for Ἰησοῦς Χριστός Θεοῦ Υἱός Σωτήρ (Iesous CHristos THeou (h) Uios Soter: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior). Evidence of this interpretation dates from the 2nd and 3rd centuries and is preserved in the catacombs of Rome. And for centuries, the Church has used the inscription INRI over the crucifix, which stands for the Latin Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum ("Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews").

Initialisms were used in Rome dating back even earlier than the Christian era. For example, the official name for the Roman Empire, and the Republic before it, was abbreviated as SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus).

I guess that predates the 17th century, hmmm??? PLENTY of time to "permeate into the common language."

And just for the record, IWMES is an initialism. Acronyms (where initials are pronounced as words) became in vogue in the mid-20th century.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Suzi]

Hi Michael-
As to that phrase it hails from my teaching days when some 'Herbert' would be up to no good and I'd say 'What are you doing?' ....he would then say....in a Pompey accent 'Oi aint doing nuffink Miss'...Suspect guilty as charged! (My sardonic reply was always...'If you aint doing nuffink you must be doing somefink!'
LOL... is pronounced as a word these days though Tom!!! For better or worse! and is in common (very!) as is defo for definately etc etc etc
And of course...as Ally will back me up on the best source of spelling has to be http://icanhascheezburger.com/

Suz x

[sdreid]

I wonder if the coppers didn't just have Jew on the brain.

[Ally]

Actually sweets wikipedia is not my source. But here's another clue for you that apparently you didn't get from Wikipedia: the ancient romans didn't speak ENGLISH. A lingusitic markers appearance in one language is completely irrelevant when debating its origin in another.

[paul emmett]

Paul Emmett writes:
"If they can't figure it out, he can see himself as way too smart for them."

Yes, Paul, and - not to forget - for himself too...

I always thought that if he did write that message, he did so in order to be recognized. Therefore, to muddle the possibilities for recognition seems not a wise thing to do.

Hi, Fisherman.

But all this is based on your assunption that he wrote primarily to be recognized, which, of course, is possible. But it is also possible thar he wrote to play with the police--or the world. It could have been 40% recognition, 50% play and 10% something else. He could have been showing off his clever, personal style.

Upon reflection, maybe these answers aren't so different. They both entail being recognized; it's just a matter of being recognized for what!