The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[Investigator]

Hello all, Billy,
I think you're right about the grammar, the writer could be translating into English. "The Jews” is a collective noun for all Jews, male and female, it is incorrect to classify them as “The men”. This appears a clumsy translation from a European language into English. In English, “The Jews are the men” is more correctly rendered “The Jewish men”, which in the 1888 contemporary German translates as “Die Juedischen Männer”, being Jewish is descriptive of a class of men. That this German spelling was in vogue at this time can be seen in the heading of an article by William Wess in 1903, a witness in the Stride inquest and an IWES member.
The stem spelling is also consistent with the confusion of the graffiti word of “Jews”. This may in fact be what was intended. In German, masculine and feminine is differentiated in the plural by the ending on the stem word, so that “Die Juden”, refers to male Jews and “Die Judin” to female Jews as a collective plural so it is unnecessary to refer to the subject as “the men”.
It may also be observed that the correct English pronoun for people is “who” and not “that”. In German the differentiation is gender related having the plural indefinite article “die” translating as “that”. However, it is common enough for native English speakers to use pronouns incorrectly and by itself, is not strong evidence to support a foreign translation. This may be all balloney and it would be useful if a native German could vouch for this interpretation or even another language.
Since the exact spelling of Jews is in doubt, it is sufficient to concede that it was misspelled to include a “U” in a social context that would commonly have exposed the writer to the correct English spelling. On the face of it, the misspelling of “Jews” (whatever the configuration) is unexpected in view of the strong representation of the Jewish community in the East End.
Having said that, I think Toms idea of IWES rather fascinating, and who knows there could be a connection there.
Regards DG

[The Good Michael]

Investigator,

"The Jews are the men" is not a close translation of "Die Juedische Maenner"

"Die Jueden sind die Maenner" is where it would come from literally.

Mike

[perrymason]

I think a useful exercise here is to ask oneself two questions, does the use of dougle negative phrasing seem to indicate a ESL issue, or is it used as it might be with English speaking residents, perhaps as a dramatic or sarcastic tone, or to confuse or mock?

A witness description of a good "schoolboy" handwriting style. "Juwes/Juewes" capitilized. The word "nothing" has its "g". "The" capitalized. Spaced...5 lines?

Best regards all.

[Roy Corduroy]

Reply to Warren

From page 117 of London's East End; Point of Arrival by Chaim Bermant, New York 1975

Sir Charles Warren himself was puzzled by it and he wrote to the Chief Rabbi as to its significance. The reply was immediate and unequivocal:

Office of the Chief Rabbi
October 13th, 1888

Dear Sir Charles,

I was just about to write to you on the very subject named in your note. I was deeply pained by the statements that appeared in several papers today, the 'Standard', 'Daily News', etc., that in the Yiddish dialect the word Jews is spelled 'Juewes'. This is not a fact. The equivalent in the Judao-German (Yiddish) jargon is 'Yidden'. I do not know of any dialect or language in which 'Jews' is spelled 'Juewes'. I am convinced that the writing emanated from some illiterate Englishman who did not know to spell the word correctly...

My community really appreciates your humane and vigilant actions during this critical time.

I am convinced that no Jew unless he be a maniac could be connected with the horrible outrages. There is nothing which a Jew is taught to view with greater horror than the mutilation of a dead body, whether it be a Jew or a gentile.

With sincere regards,

Hermann Adler

[Investigator]

Mike Thanks for that input, I had the modern German translation worked out as “Die Juden sind die Männer, die nicht für nichts getadelt warden” , would this be correct?. When I came across the article headed "Die Juedischen Arbeiter in London," by George Halpern, 1903. Papers of William Wess, in University of Warwick Library, I reckoned we had a contempory ideomatic version. Either way being a Jew is a category of men rather than men being a subset of Jews. An ESL specialist would be worth talking with about the translation issue. Cambridge University are the professionals in this area I believe.
A useful reference to the cultural use of the double negative is found in Wikipedia under "Double Negatives". Seems that the cockney use it a lot but usually ungrammatically. Hebrew language is ripe in double negatives but German hardly ever. The GSG construction is correctly written.
Roy, I could well imagine that Rabbi Adler would not wish to see any Jewish connection being explored in reference to Jack the Ripper. Even so I think he is quite right in rejecting a Yiddish language writer because neither an "e" nor a "u" are used in the word "Jew". The Jewish connection is never the less reasonably strong. Take a look at Tom Wescott's article , An Inspiration From Hell for an interesting relationship between Jews and the German language.
regards DG

[The Good Michael]

Investigator,

The translation is good aside from the last word which should be spelled with 'u' instead of 'a'.

The thing about Yiddish that most people overlook, is that double negatives are so commonplace that they are grammatically correct. Another thing to keep in mind is that there is no 'J' in the Hebrew alphabet, in which Yiddish was written. I think it very well could have been a Yiddish speaker whose first language wasn't written in the Roman alphabet, but rather in Hebrew or cyrillic. That is just a guess, however. I don' know if the grafittist has anything to do with the apron bearer. I would say that the apron bearer at least knew of the grafitti based on probability.

Cheers,

Mike

[celee]

I would be interested to know what others theories may be concerning the GSG and what it means assuming that JTR wrote it.

Right now I have four running theories about it. Ill list them in the order I feel most likely.

1: JTR was a Jew who has for some reason been rejected by his Jewish community. Could be some form of trauma he experienced as a child.

2: JTR was not a Jew and attemps to blame the Jews miserably.

3: The message was meant for Schwartz.

4: JTR was not responsible for all of the murders. He believes the person who is reponsible for the murders he did not commit, was a Jew.

They all open up the remote possibility that Strides murder was intended to point to a member of the IWEC.

Of course this is all assuming JTR wrote the GSG wich doesnt seem likely.

So.... Anyone else have a pet theory?

Hi,

I think the GSG refers to the death of Christ. I feel if Jack the Ripper did write the GSG then he would not have been a Jew. He was claiming that a Jew was not responsible for the murders. However they were responsible for the death of Christ.

Your friend, Brad

[c.d.]

I said it before and I'll say it again. Barnett wrote it after he was reduced to selling oranges..."The Juice Are Not the Men Who Will Be Blamed for Nothing."

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

Brad,

Which bits of wording refer to Christ?

Mike

[Investigator]

Mike, Thanks for the correction and a good point about the script. I had in mind that if he thought in German the inclusion of a "U" was an error in converting to English and the "J" is consistent with that language rather than the "Y" replacing the "J". If his native language was Yiddish he would possibly use the "i" by mistake rather than "U". Is it possible that he was more familiar with Hebrew than Yiddish? This would also be consistent with the use of the double negative. Incidently, I hope I didn't offend you, I realise now that teaching in Korea you would probably be well versed with the bye-ways of ESL.
The use of the double negative may also indicate his level of schooling. In your experience what level of education would you expect to have been reached to use this grammatically? My guess is that he is of foriegn parents schooled in England, not in a Ragged, the Union or Industrial School but possibly a Jewish School. Either way, in those days English would have been taught using the "polysyllabic" method, since abandoned.
Because of the cultural segregation that occured with migrants the use of his native language may have involved some decay of English grammar. Of course the Jewish connection is probably another thread, but if you happen to be Jewish perhaps you could explain for Gentile readers the significance of the threshold and the meaning of the mezuzah on Jewish homes.
The Wentworth Model Dwelling was principally occupied by Jews. I am wondering if that the message was written for the residents to read and carried a moral message only intrepretable by a knowledge of Jewish sentiment. The detail of the historical context is important to establish meaning. That could account why everyone has difficulty understanding it. Once the message has some meaning attached to it, the question of linking the apron to the message may become clearer.
regards to all DG

[The Good Michael]

DG,

I don't know that I have any answers. It really is all surmise on my part. Many of the Jewish immigrants had very high educational backgrounds, typically in Russia. This is attested to by Bill Fishman in his books on the East End Jews, and by looking at several members of the International Jewish Worker's Club (or whatever the name is. I can't recall), off Berner st, right next to the place Stride was murdered.

I would surmise (and that is all it is) that the writer of the grafitti could have been an immigrant who had decent knowledge of English, but saw nothing wrong with double negatives as they were a big part of his first language and were something he observed daily in the East End with native speakers. It would have seemed right. This being said, I'm not sure he was using a double negative in the sense we might think. I believe he was issuing a warning and that his choice of words were quite good. The 'Juwes' thing seems to me to be a logical spelling to a non-native speaker. I work with students who have been studying English for more than 8 years. They consistantly mess up the spelling of proper nouns... incredibly consistently, even after we've done it over and over. I think that is the result of a different alphabet, much like Hebrew and the Roman alphabet would not have any intuitive connections.

And yes, I believe the message was written for the Jews as maybe a rallying cry, but I don't think there's any intended hidden meaning. It's just cryptic to us, much like James Joyce because we can't ask himm, "Er, what's this then?"

Cheers,

Mike

I'm not Jewish by the way.

[paul emmett]

but I don't think there's any intended hidden meaning. It's just cryptic to us, much like James Joyce because we can't ask himm, "Er, what's this then?"

Good analogy.

[DVV]

Brad,

Which bits of wording refer to Christ?

Mike

Hello Mike,
It's not a matter of wording, I suppose, it's just about the blame put on the Jews, since antisemitism, at that time, was mainly a Christian tradition.

Amitiés,
David

[Investigator]

Thanks for that Mike, it’s been a great help in getting a perspective on the language issues. May I try to capture a summary of your position – correct me if I’m wrong? The spelling of Juews and the use of the double negative collectively support your surmise that the writer could have been an immigrant with a decent knowledge of English which possibly was not his first language.
If I’ve understood you correctly, then it’s a pretty good, qualified position which, with such a small sample to interpret, I doubt could be bettered. For my part, I would add that for additional reasons, his first language is likely to be German and he’s equally at home with Hebrew. We cannot draw any conclusion of his nationality from this.
In relation to the audience it was directed at, I’m pretty certain (not a belief) it was meant to be read by Jews and in this respect there is no hidden meaning, as you say, it’s cryptic to those who are unable to tap into the sentiment of a foriegn culture and not have a codebook with which to assemble the pieces.
On the question of meaning, I think the message needs to be translated into ordinary English. The double negative can be converted from the scaling of nothing - something – everything. This brings the sentence out of the brain contortions to read “The Jewish men will be blamed for everything”. It’s almost a defensive statement rather than anti-Semitic. If anyone has a better reconstruction, step in. Clearly everything does not include the sinking of the Princess Alice in the Thames but refers to the dilemma of the writer. The use of “will” in the sentence could mean they will be judged at some time in the future. Almost apostolic in a religious sense! Since Jewish men is collective, they cannot all be responsible for everybody’s ills, but they could be blamed for something they are perceived to have done that affect other people.
The placement of this message on the doorpost of a Jewish residence begs some understanding since this has particular significance in Jewish theology. I don’t think it’s my place as a Gentile to be explaining matters of Jewish religion. Information however is readily available from the net or books. It will follow from this, that the writer of the GSG would have had some knowledge of theology for making his message in the position he did, I cannot accept this to have occurred by chance with other matters all considered.
As an added point, to be a Jew doesn’t mean that everyone holds orthodox views and battles within religions are more frequent than not, (See Fishman) even among Christians. I hope this can provide some ground for constructive discussion. Unfortunately I won’t be able to continue with the debate for some months since I will only have infrequent access to a landline while at sea. Regards to all, and thanks again Mike, happy hunting. DG

[Monty]

Brad,

I like the way you think.

Monty