Not for nothing

[Pierre]

Sorry if it appears to be nit picking, Pierre, but you have spelt 'were' with an 'h' in it, making it 'where'.
Doesn't this mean that there is a possibility that the spelling of Juwes could have been intended to be Jews and was just a mistake?
Regards
Albert

Of course it could. But not because of my h.

[Albert]

Even literate people make mistakes

QUOTE=Bridewell;418501



Yes.



Compare the versions of Halse and Long. Why where w and e put at these positions?

ju we s
ju ew s

Sorry if it appears to be nit picking, Pierre, but you have spelt 'were' with an 'h' in it, making it 'where'.
Doesn't this mean that there is a possibility that the spelling of Juwes could have been intended to be Jews and was just a mistake?
Regards
Albert

[Henry Flower]

Compare the versions of Halse and Long. Why where w and e put at these positions?

ju we s
ju ew s

Neither version resembles in any way 'dg', one letter of which features an ascender, the other a descending loop. Neither 'e' nor 'w' would be remotely likely to be letters mistakenly recorded in place of 'd', or 'g' or 'dg'.

And what the hell has this question got to do with the phrase 'not for nothing'?

Your mind appears to be falling to pieces, Pierre. Maybe some rest is needed.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Bridewell;418501

I share Pierre's view that a man who can spell "nothing" can probably also spell "Jews".

Yes.

Where we differ is in his believing that two men reading the word "Judges" could both transcribe it without either of them including a 'd' or a 'g'.

Compare the versions of Halse and Long. Why where w and e put at these positions?

ju we s
ju ew s

[Bridewell]

Because you can know what people thought about the GSG without knowing about the GSG and even better you can work out what they thought about it by discussing a phrase not even in it.

Sheesh, give us a break.

I share Pierre's view that a man who can spell "nothing" can probably also spell "Jews". Where we differ is in his believing that two men reading the word "Judges" could both transcribe it without either of them including a 'd' or a 'g'. I think that scenario is as unlikely as anything ever posted on Casebook that didn't relate to Vincent Van Gogh or Toulouse Lautrec.

[GUT]

Because you can know what people thought about the GSG without knowing about the GSG and even better you can work out what they thought about it by discussing a phrase not even in it.

Sheesh, give us a break.

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell

It is not about the GSG but about the people who tried to understand the GSG.

Okay.

And thanks for the reference to the post with the reference to the Penny Illustrated.

Cheers, Pierre

You're welcome.

[Pierre]

In the opening post of this thread you claimed that it was not about the GSG:-

Either it is or it isn't. If it is about the GSG you should be honest and concede the point. If it is not about the GSG then your references to it are off topic. Make your mind up. You can't have it both ways!

Hi Bridewell

It is not about the GSG but about the people who tried to understand the GSG.

And thanks for the reference to the post with the reference to the Penny Illustrated.

Cheers, Pierre

[Bridewell]

Dear Henry,

I am not interested in being clever but I wanted you to understand that people who saw the GSG didnīt understand much of it, but still they had their opinions about it. What we used was an heuristic method, it has many advantages.

Cheers, Pierre

In the opening post of this thread you claimed that it was not about the GSG:-

This thread is not about the GSG in itself but it is about the expression
"not for nothing".

In this thread anyone can publish versions of this expression, so that we may have a collection of different uses of it.

I therefore invite those who have some examples to publish them here.

The only requirement is that the examples contain the construction "not for nothing" and were written by authors born in Victorian times or earlier, but preferably Victorian times.

Firstly, the expression was constructed like this in the GSG (just a reminder, no discussion about the GSG now). (My emphasis).

Either it is or it isn't. If it is about the GSG you should be honest and concede the point. If it is not about the GSG then your references to it are off topic. Make your mind up. You can't have it both ways!

[Bridewell]

Naturally I had to mention it to explain that this is not a discussion about it.

Cheers, Pierre

Of course you didn't. You didn't deem it necessary to list all the other possible subjects that it wasn't about!

[John Wheat]

So more of his rubbish a thread that's not really about what he said it was about.

Probably about time his oxygen got cut off.

Why doesn't he just name his suspect? Or if he hasn't got one **** off?

[GUT]

So more of his rubbish a thread that's not really about what he said it was about.

Probably about time his oxygen got cut off.

[harry]

Pierre
In answer to your post (96),how many saw it?

[GUT]

So let's be clear: you wanted us to understand that "people" who "saw" the GSG didn't understand much of it but still had their opinions about it, and you did this by not discussing the GSG, but instead by discussing a phrase that does not appear in the GSG, by removing some words from it and using them in a manner completely different from their use in that artifact? And then by feigning some point-scoring hyper-stupidity about what is and isn't merely cockney, or playing the fool over what is and what is not a genuine double-negative.

And you expect us to believe that by doing this you have learned or demonstrated something?

Are you effing deluded? Seriously, you think anyone is falling for this pathetic charade?

In regards to your last two questions,

My opinion (just my opinion mind you) is Yes to both of them.

[Henry Flower]

Dear Henry,

I am not interested in being clever but I wanted you to understand that people who saw the GSG didnīt understand much of it, but still they had their opinions about it. What we used was an heuristic method, it has many advantages.

Cheers, Pierre

This thread is not about the GSG in itself but it is about the expression
"not for nothing".

So let's be clear: you wanted us to understand that "people" who "saw" the GSG didn't understand much of it but still had their opinions about it, and you did this by not discussing the GSG, but instead by discussing a phrase that does not appear in the GSG, by removing some words from it and using them in a manner completely different from their use in that artifact? And then by feigning some point-scoring hyper-stupidity about what is and isn't merely cockney, or playing the fool over what is and what is not a genuine double-negative.

And you expect us to believe that by doing this you have learned or demonstrated something?

Are you effing deluded? Seriously, you think anyone is falling for this pathetic charade?