Not for nothing

[Sam Flynn]

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..."?

[Pierre]

[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

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Pierre

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.

[Pierre]

[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

[DJA]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Pierre]

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.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Callmebill;427102]

The judges/law are not the men who will be blamed for nothing.
So, as I favour judgement . . . he’s saying – OK. I don’t know, but something like:
The judges are the men to blame? It’s their fault. Whose fault? The men of the laws’ fault.

Hi,

They will not be blamed in vain.

Compare "The soldiers died for nothing".

Compare: The soldiers will not die for nothing. They will not die in vain.

Conclusion: Therefore they will die for something.

The judges are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.

Conclusion: They will not be blamed in vain. Therefore they will be blamed for something.

For "something": something is the price for blaming them. The price is the murdered victims.

How about that?

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

You used one line from the first section of my post to reply to Bill's second last post.
Why didn't you do you reply to his last post earlier!

Because I didn't, and your comment about Jack's being well read triggered another thought, that's all.

[DJA]

You used one line from the first section of my post to reply to Bill's fourth last post.
Why did you do you reply to his last post earlier!

For someone who has called me a Troll,best you rummage around under your bridge for a mirror

[Sam Flynn]

Thus missing the point of my post,being that Jack may have been familiar with "Piers Plowman" and William Morris who had been listed to speak at IWMED the week before Stride's murder.

I didn't respond to the rest of your post, otherwise I'd have quoted it. Instead, I only quoted "Seems that our Jack was well read" and responded to it (quite appropriately, and without contradicting you) because it formed a nice conversational "hinge" by which I could also respond to Bill's suggestion that the GSG author might have known Proto-Indo-European.

I thought that, by doing so, I'd save time and keystrokes. Evidently I was over-optimistic

[DJA]

Thus missing the point of my post,being that Jack may have been familiar with "Piers Plowman" and William Morris who had been listed to speak at IWMED the week before Stride's murder.

[Sam Flynn]

You totally ignored the first three lines of my post,and as usual singled out one piece out of context.

I just used your comment about Jack being "well-read" as an opportunity to provide some observations on Proto-Indo-European, that's all, thus saving me having to reply to two posts (yours and Callmebill's) separately.

[DJA]

You totally ignored the first three lines of my post,and as usual singled out one piece out of context.