Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not for nothing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    He may have been well-read, but surely not to the extent where he understood Proto-Indo-European [PIE]? This theoretical "language" had only started to be reconstructed in earnest by scholars in the mid/late 19th Century, and the full lexicon of suggested PIE root-words has continued to be developed since - an enormous undertaking, considering the tens/hundreds of thousands of words that would need to be covered. Intriguing though the idea may seem, it's quite possible that PIE "words" like juwe, juwesdiks or jéwestos hadn't yet been proposed by scholars, still less published, by the time the GSG was written.
    It is remarkable that people don´t understand that the transcriptions of the writing were the results of misreadings and not a misspelling.

    Everyone who thought the word was "Jews" could write down "Jews" in their transcription. They did not.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DJA View Post
      https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=5226


      Especially William Morris's involvement with The International Working Men's Club at 40 Berner Street late September 1888,given his busy schedule.
      If you are speaking about his scheduled speaking appearance that was cancelled, then every member of the club could be your "Jack". It's hilarious that you and others simply pass by the warnings of violence at the club based on Morris's scheduled appearance, and still cling to the Phantom Menace as the one who cut Liz Strides throat...... once.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
        It is remarkable that people don´t understand that the transcriptions of the writing were the results of misreadings and not a misspelling.

        Everyone who thought the word was "Jews" could write down "Jews" in their transcription. They did not.
        But there would have to be at least two misreadings, given that more than one variant spelling was advanced at the time - "Juwes" and "Jewes". This would seem to suggest that there was at least an ambiguity in the writing, if not an outright mis-spelling. Something was evidently unusual about the word, otherwise it would have been remembered/recorded more consistently.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
          If you are speaking about his scheduled speaking appearance that was cancelled, then every member of the club could be your "Jack". It's hilarious that you and others simply pass by the warnings of violence at the club based on Morris's scheduled appearance, and still cling to the Phantom Menace as the one who cut Liz Strides throat...... once.
          So,you have notice of the cancellation?

          Really don't understand the remainder of your post regarding warnings of violence at the club.

          Any link to either would be appreciated.
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • [QUOTE=Sam Flynn;427150]

            But there would have to be at least two misreadings, given that more than one variant spelling was advanced at the time - "Juwes" and "Jewes".
            Hi Sam,

            These are the historically established facts:

            Long interpreted the word as "Juews".

            Halse interpreted the words as "Juwes".

            Swanson interpreted their interpretations as the word having been "misspelled".

            But there was a variation in the interpretations. Therefore the word was not misspelled but misread.

            This would seem to suggest that there was at least an ambiguity in the writing, if not an outright mis-spelling.
            The ambiguity was in their interpretations. We have reliable historical sources for this.

            There is one historical explanation for it. According to Swanson the writing was blurred.
            Something was evidently unusual about the word, otherwise it would have been remembered/recorded more consistently.
            The only evidence for the word being unusual is the statement of Swanson: the writing was blurred.

            The police choose the word "Jews" for their explanation. Their choice does NOT have to be our choice.

            Pierre
            Last edited by Pierre; 08-27-2017, 02:08 AM.

            Comment


            • Hello Pierre
              Originally posted by Pierre View Post
              Long interpreted the word as "Juews".

              Halse interpreted the words as "Juwes".

              Swanson interpreted their interpretations as the word having been "misspelled".

              But there was a variation in the interpretations. Therefore the word was not misspelled but misread.
              It's also eminently possible that the message was both misspelled and misread. If it was spelt unusually to begin with, then it would increase the chances of its being misinterpreted.
              The ambiguity was in their interpretations.
              Their interpretations were divergent, but not ambiguous: Halse said "Juwes", Long said "Juews"; that much is clear, so no ambiguity there.
              The police choose the word "Jews" for their explanation. Their choice does NOT have to be our choice.
              True, but "Jews" remains by far and away the most likely interpretation, in a part of the world where the Jewish population was high, Jewish immigration was perceived as a social problem, and anti-semitism was rife.
              Last edited by Sam Flynn; 08-27-2017, 02:18 AM.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Sam Flynn;427159]

                Hello Pierre

                It's also eminently possible that the message was both misspelled and misread.
                Hi Sam,

                I´m afraid not. You see, the rest of the words were interpreted without any ambiguity. They were spelled correctly. Therefore, the author of the GSG could spell.

                If it was spelt unusually to begin with,
                It wasn´t. There are sufficient sources for a reliable historical explanation without an hypothesis based on the non reliable "if", for which there are no sources.

                Swanson wrote that the writing was blurred. That is backed by the sources stating that the writing was done on a brick wall and with chalk.

                then it would increase the chances of its being misinterpreted.
                And the statement about the writing having been blurred together with the sources for the brick wall and chalk, and for the spelling ability of the author, are sufficient for drawing the conclusion that these were the historical facts leading to the misinterpretation.

                Therefore we do not need the "if".

                Cheers, Pierre

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  I´m afraid not. You see, the rest of the words were interpreted without any ambiguity.
                  The rest of the words notwithstanding, it's evident that the key word (J***s) was sufficiently ambiguous as a stimulus that it was interpreted differently by Halse and Long.

                  Besides, the rest of the message had its fair share of ambiguity, too; was it "The J***s are not the men..." or "The J***s are the men that will not..."?
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • [QUOTE=Sam Flynn;427161]

                    The rest of the words notwithstanding, it's evident that the key word (J***s) was sufficiently ambiguous as a stimulus that it was interpreted differently by Halse and Long.
                    Yes, but not because the author could not spell. But because there are sources for blurred writing, the brick wall and chalk.

                    So the specific conditions on which the writing had to be created were:

                    brick wall
                    chalk

                    And the result:

                    blurred

                    These conditions, and their result, are sufficient for a well established historical explanation for the existance of the following sources:

                    Long: "Juews" and "Jewes"

                    Halse: "Juwes"

                    This is what you interpret as "ambiguity", as did the police in 1888

                    And the strategy for solving the problem of this "ambiguity" was the choice of the police to interpret it as:

                    "Jews"

                    and people have since then believed, like you do, that "the correct word" (!) had to be "Jews".

                    Besides, the rest of the message had its fair share of ambiguity, too; wmust have been "Jews", from that strategy.

                    as it "The J***s are not the men..." or "The J***s are the men that will not..."?
                    The version if from Long. It shows us that the author of the GSG was not the problem: he could spell.

                    But PC Long was not capable of interpreting the GSG correctly. He gave his statement as both "Jewes" and "Juews". He also stated that Halse had commented on his spelling.

                    And he also differed from the writing of Halse in the word order.

                    Halse was a Detective Officer and at the inquest he stated that he took a note of the writing before it was rubbed out and "the exact words were "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing". "

                    So the sources are very clear and it is easy to establish historical facts on them.

                    Pierre
                    Last edited by Pierre; 08-27-2017, 03:14 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      And the strategy for solving the problem of this "ambiguity" was the choice of the police to interpret it as:

                      "Jews"

                      and people have since then believed, like you do, that "the correct word" (!) had to be "Jews".
                      I don't believe it because the police interpreted it as "Jews", but because it is by far and away the most probable reading. Like I said, the graffito was found in a part of the world where the Jewish population was high, Jewish immigration was perceived as a social problem, and anti-semitism was rife. Whether it was ambiguously spelled, misspelled, blurred or not, the graffito self-evidently speaks about the Children of Israel, and nothing - or nobody - else.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=Sam Flynn;427164]

                        I don't believe it because the police interpreted it as "Jews", but because it is by far and away the most probable reading. Like I said, the graffito was found in a part of the world where the Jewish population was high, Jewish immigration was perceived as a social problem, and anti-semitism was rife. Whether it was ambiguously spelled, misspelled, blurred or not, the graffito self-evidently speaks about the Children of Israel, and nothing - or nobody - else.
                        And that was the interpretation of the police in 1888. That was their understanding.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                          And that was the interpretation of the police in 1888. That was their understanding.
                          Indeed, and it's beyond all reasonable doubt that they interpreted/understood correctly.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • I don't know either, but ...

                            It would be difficult to avoid a large Jewish population in Whitechapel. Jews isn't a difficult word to spell, and it's written often enough in contemporary newspaper reports that most literate people would be aware of its spelling.
                            We don't know Warren's motive. We do know the reason he gave for sponging away the graffito.
                            David Wilson Professor of Criminology:
                            'Connection, connection, connection. There is no such thing as coincidence when you are dealing with serial killers.'

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              Indeed, and it's beyond all reasonable doubt that they interpreted/understood correctly.
                              Dear Sam,

                              not beyond "all" reasonable doubt. Just beyond the reasonable doubt of those who believe the old understanding was correct.

                              Cheers, Pierre

                              Comment


                              • It's a puzzle.

                                That's where I am with the meaning.
                                For some reason the judges/law is to blame, or in some part responsible. I especially like the word :doom in relation to the definition.
                                David Wilson Professor of Criminology:
                                'Connection, connection, connection. There is no such thing as coincidence when you are dealing with serial killers.'

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X