Not for nothing

[David Orsam]

You are wasting your time, David. You did not manage to answer the questions but instead you write this incoherent post.

Oh my dear boy, there were no questions in your post, merely an unintelligible purported "Conclusion II".

It was the absence of any questions which explains why I did not answer them.

[Pierre]

I'm going to mark your work now, my dear boy, and, oh dear, I find it very lacking in any academic quality and can only give it an E minus. The lack of source references (i.e. post numbers) and poster IDs for each of the supposed "examples" of poster responses is very poor scholarship. In fact, you seem to have been reading a different thread to the one on this forum.

There was a very consistent response to your OP in the subsequent posts which is that you were wasting everyone's time. That hasn't been mentioned for some reason.

Let me take your purported responses about "not for nothing" individually:

"Has nothing to do with the Ripper case" - Now that is perfectly correct so why are we actually discussing it?

"Comes from literature" - Oh my dear boy, there seems to be some confusion on your part. It was you who gave examples of this phrase from literature. I don't recall anyone else saying anything about it.

"Is not only cockney" - Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, my dear, dear boy. You have misunderstood again. You can actually read English I take it? You were told that "not for nothing" is not a cockney expression at all. I told you that in #21 (i.e."No-one is saying, or has said, that the expression "not for nothing" is "pure and simple cockney from the street in Victorian Whitechapel""). Steve told you the same thing in #40 (i.e. "the term "not for nothing" which Pierre as strangely introduced is neither cockney or general London in usage or history.") When you posted strangely in #18: "you may see why I am puzzled when some people say that the expression was spoken cockney from the East End", GUT directly replied to you in #20 saying "Please show us where anyone has said that, about the phrase that you can't even link to the ripper case." So no-one, my dear boy, no-one, is saying it is "not only cockney" they are saying it is not cockney, comprendo?

"Is a bit similar to another expression which is cockney and a double negative" - Well they have the words "not" and "nothing" in them so there is some element of similarity.

"But still completely different" - Yes my dear boy, because they are not the same thing.

"Double negatives seem to date back to Old English usage" - Yes my dear boy. What conclusion do you draw from that?

Is there any difference between using or speaking a double negative? - Now my dear boy it is correct that Scott Nelson asked in #23: "Would someone be lees inclined to write a sentence with a double negative as opposed to speaking one?" to which GUT replied in #24 "Possibly vary be education and context of the writing.". But Scott was not suggesting that there was difference between using (i.e. writing) or speaking a double negative, he was just asking if it would be less common to write it rather than speak it.

"That depends on education and context" - As I have just explained my dear boy, that was the answer given by GUT to a different question than the one you have summarised. He was only referring to the likelihood (i.e. inclination) of it being spoken as opposed to written.

"Not for nothing is good for nothing" - I think someone might have been speaking about you there my dear boy.

""Not for nothing" is a claim or statement that something has been done or said with good reason" - That was the dictionary definition supplied by Pcdunn in #8.

"The term "not for nothing" is neither cockney or general London in usage or history." - Yes my dear boy, that was Steve, as I have already mentioned, and what he said was consistent with everything you have been told.

Are they not just sort of everyday expressions though? - That was andy1867 my dear boy in #50 responding to a list of three expressions posted by Harry in #45.

"They all simply mean that there is a price involved in a particular circumstance" - That was andy1867 in #50 again, responding to a list of three expressions posted by Harry in #45.

Hardly "Victorian".. - And once again, you are quoting andy1867 in #50 replying to Harry.

Strangely you quoted everything from andy1867's post at#50 except his final sentence which was:

"I would honestly like to see where Pierre is going with it, but its just pratting about with semantics isn't it?"

Are you pratting about with semantics my dear boy?

You are wasting your time, David. You did not manage to answer the questions but instead you write this incoherent post.

[David Orsam]

Here is the result of this discussion.

Posters thought about "Not for nothing" that it:

- Has nothing to do with the Ripper case

- Comes from literature

- Is not only cockney

- Is a bit similar to another expression which is cockney and a double
negative

- But still completely different

- Double negatives seem to date back to Old English usage.

- Is there any difference between using or speaking a double negative?

That depends on education and context

- Not for nothing is good for nothing

- "Not for nothing" is a claim or statement that something has been done or
said with good reason

- The term "not for nothing" is neither cockney or general London in usage or
history.

- Are they not just sort of everyday expressions though?

- They all simply mean that there is a price involved in a particular
circumstance,

- Hardly "Victorian"..

I'm going to mark your work now, my dear boy, and, oh dear, I find it very lacking in any academic quality and can only give it an E minus. The lack of source references (i.e. post numbers) and poster IDs for each of the supposed "examples" of poster responses is very poor scholarship. In fact, you seem to have been reading a different thread to the one on this forum.

There was a very consistent response to your OP in the subsequent posts which is that you were wasting everyone's time. That hasn't been mentioned for some reason.

Let me take your purported responses about "not for nothing" individually:

"Has nothing to do with the Ripper case" - Now that is perfectly correct so why are we actually discussing it?

"Comes from literature" - Oh my dear boy, there seems to be some confusion on your part. It was you who gave examples of this phrase from literature. I don't recall anyone else saying anything about it.

"Is not only cockney" - Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, my dear, dear boy. You have misunderstood again. You can actually read English I take it? You were told that "not for nothing" is not a cockney expression at all. I told you that in #21 (i.e."No-one is saying, or has said, that the expression "not for nothing" is "pure and simple cockney from the street in Victorian Whitechapel""). Steve told you the same thing in #40 (i.e. "the term "not for nothing" which Pierre as strangely introduced is neither cockney or general London in usage or history.") When you posted strangely in #18: "you may see why I am puzzled when some people say that the expression was spoken cockney from the East End", GUT directly replied to you in #20 saying "Please show us where anyone has said that, about the phrase that you can't even link to the ripper case." So no-one, my dear boy, no-one, is saying it is "not only cockney" they are saying it is not cockney, comprendo?

"Is a bit similar to another expression which is cockney and a double negative" - Well they have the words "not" and "nothing" in them so there is some element of similarity.

"But still completely different" - Yes my dear boy, because they are not the same thing.

"Double negatives seem to date back to Old English usage" - Yes my dear boy. What conclusion do you draw from that?

Is there any difference between using or speaking a double negative? - Now my dear boy it is correct that Scott Nelson asked in #23: "Would someone be lees inclined to write a sentence with a double negative as opposed to speaking one?" to which GUT replied in #24 "Possibly vary be education and context of the writing.". But Scott was not suggesting that there was difference between using (i.e. writing) or speaking a double negative, he was just asking if it would be less common to write it rather than speak it.

"That depends on education and context" - As I have just explained my dear boy, that was the answer given by GUT to a different question than the one you have summarised. He was only referring to the likelihood (i.e. inclination) of it being spoken as opposed to written.

"Not for nothing is good for nothing" - I think someone might have been speaking about you there my dear boy.

""Not for nothing" is a claim or statement that something has been done or said with good reason" - That was the dictionary definition supplied by Pcdunn in #8.

"The term "not for nothing" is neither cockney or general London in usage or history." - Yes my dear boy, that was Steve, as I have already mentioned, and what he said was consistent with everything you have been told.

Are they not just sort of everyday expressions though? - That was andy1867 my dear boy in #50 responding to a list of three expressions posted by Harry in #45.

"They all simply mean that there is a price involved in a particular circumstance" - That was andy1867 in #50 again, responding to a list of three expressions posted by Harry in #45.

Hardly "Victorian".. - And once again, you are quoting andy1867 in #50 replying to Harry.

Strangely you quoted everything from andy1867's post at#50 except his final sentence which was:

"I would honestly like to see where Pierre is going with it, but its just pratting about with semantics isn't it?"

Are you pratting about with semantics my dear boy?

[Pierre]

He is critical of authorities in 1888 who thought Juwes meant Jews.

This from the same person who wants us to accept that it meant Judges.

Dear GUT,

I do not want you to accept anything.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;418169]

I mean exactly what I say my dear boy.

The words "not" and "nothing" are undoubtedly two negatives so there is a double negative in the construction but it is not what I would call a true double negative because there is no ambiguity in the meaning.

So it is just your own opinion. "What you would call".

I naturally prefer research to that.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the expression "not for nothing" is a standalone phrase which has its own distinct meaning (i.e. it means "for a very good reason").

Warren would surely have needed your help. Just think about it! The Pointing Out of Distinct Meanings, a book by David Orsam. Dedicated to Warren and to all those people who understood nothing when they read the GSG and the "copies" of it!

If we take a true double negative like "I’m not doing nothing", the speaker here is trying to convey the impression that they are not doing anything and thus should have said "I’m not doing anything".

Could you please tell us what sort of syntactic function you are trying to describe here?

With the double negative in it, the sentence is ambiguous because the two negatives create a positive.

Reference to research on this function, please.

If the person is literally not doing nothing then they are doing something, which is the exact opposite meaning which is trying to be conveyed. Not doing nothing could thus mean equally "doing nothing" or "doing something" depending on whether you interpret literally or in context. That’s where the ambiguity lies.

With "not for nothing", while the two negatives do in some respects create a positive,

That is really a very bad method for comparison between the types and you just discovered this by yourself. Congratulations.

there is no ambiguity and, indeed, if you were to replace it with "not for anything" or "not for something" it now doesn’t make sense.

For you, that is.

That’s because it has a distinct meaning unconnected to the double negatives.

Can you explain to us the syntactic definition of your idea here?

Hence, in my view, my dear boy, it cannot be considered a true double negative, especially not one of the cockney variety.

And the last two words of course should be included in another linguistic discussion but if you do not manage syntax, how could you manage linquistics?

To be fair to you, David, I do not say that you do not manage it. As you can see, I wrote "if" and I am waiting for your answers.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001/acprof-9780199290802

p. 142

What do you mean by a "true" double negative, David?

Pierre

I mean exactly what I say my dear boy.

The words "not" and "nothing" are undoubtedly two negatives so there is a double negative in the construction but it is not what I would call a true double negative because there is no ambiguity in the meaning.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the expression "not for nothing" is a standalone phrase which has its own distinct meaning (i.e. it means "for a very good reason").

If we take a true double negative like "I’m not doing nothing", the speaker here is trying to convey the impression that they are not doing anything and thus should have said "I’m not doing anything". With the double negative in it, the sentence is ambiguous because the two negatives create a positive. If the person is literally not doing nothing then they are doing something, which is the exact opposite meaning which is trying to be conveyed. Not doing nothing could thus mean equally "doing nothing" or "doing something" depending on whether you interpret literally or in context. That’s where the ambiguity lies.

With "not for nothing", while the two negatives do in some respects create a positive, there is no ambiguity and, indeed, if you were to replace it with "not for anything" or "not for something" it now doesn’t make sense. That’s because it has a distinct meaning unconnected to the double negatives. Hence, in my view, my dear boy, it cannot be considered a true double negative, especially not one of the cockney variety.

[GUT]

He is critical of authorities in 1888 who thought Juwes meant Jews.

This from the same person who wants us to accept that it meant Judges.

[Henry Flower]

At this stage the moderators would actually be doing Pierre a favour if they banned him.

[GUT]

So what does it mean?

Oh I know it means Pierre is playing silly little games yet again.

[GUT]

So another load of rubbish.

[Pierre]

Results: The understanding of Not for nothing

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):

"...are not the men that will be blamed for nothing" or, if you prefer another version:

"...are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".

Now, some people believe that the expression was a "cockney double negative" used especially by the lower classes in Whitechapel.

Therefore, it would be very interesting to see some examples for that use with the construction "not for nothing" here. So please post if you have such.

But the expression "not for nothing" also has a long history in English literature, dating back to Shakespeare.

I give you some examples here:

Lancelot

An they have conspired together, I will not say you
shall see a masque; but if you do, then it was not
for nothing that my nose fell a-bleeding on
Black-Monday last at six o’clock i’ the morning,
falling out that year on Ash-Wednesday was four
year, in the afternoon.

Shakespeare, The Merchant Of Venice.

And we have it in literature from several authors born in Victorian times.

Here you can see it in the literature of Jack London:

Not for nothing had he been exposed to the pitiless struggles for life in the day of his cubhood, when his mother and he, alone and unaided, held their own and survived in the ferocious environment of the Wild.

Jack London, White Fang

It is also in Robert Louis Stevenson´s writings:

It is not for nothing that this “ignoble tobagie” as Michelet calls it, spreads all over the world.

Robert Louis Stevenson “Virginibus Puerisque and Other Papers”

The expression "Not for nothing" is also in the writings of C.S. Lewis:

It is not for nothing you are named Ransom.

C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

“Be sure it is not for nothing that the Landlord has knit our hearts so closely to time and place – to one friend rather than another and one shire more than all the land.”

C.S. Lewis, The Pilgrim´s Regress.

So please publish your example(s) if you have some. Thanks.

Best wishes, Pierre

Hi,

I asked you to publish examples of the idiom "Not for nothing".

Some did and there was also a discussion.

Here is the result of this discussion.

Posters thought about "Not for nothing" that it:

- Has nothing to do with the Ripper case

- Comes from literature

- Is not only cockney

- Is a bit similar to another expression which is cockney and a double
negative

- But still completely different

- Double negatives seem to date back to Old English usage.

- Is there any difference between using or speaking a double negative?

That depends on education and context

- Not for nothing is good for nothing

- "Not for nothing" is a claim or statement that something has been done or
said with good reason

- The term "not for nothing" is neither cockney or general London in usage or
history.

- Are they not just sort of everyday expressions though?

- They all simply mean that there is a price involved in a particular
circumstance,

- Hardly "Victorian"..

Conclusion: This is a simple idiom for which there is some research.

Still people here do not understand the provinience of it and they give contradictory statements about it.

Now, there was also another element in the discussion:

"The Juwes are nothing".
"The Juwes are not men"
"The Juwes are the men that will"
"The Juwes are the men that will not"
"The Juwes are blamed, not nothing"
"The men will be blamed"
"The men will be nothing"

"I will give you money,but,not for nothing".

"I will give you help,but,not for nothing".

"I will go with you,but,not for nothing"

The Juwes kill ,but,not for nothing

The Jewes are not the nitwits that for nothing knitting will not be unknotted knowingly.

JUWES is actually JUDE

The meaning is obscure and the murders were done far from the madding crowd?

Conclusion II: This element is referring to another bit of text in the GSG: the word "Juwes".You started to connect the idiom to the GSG! And you started to give examples containing the word Juwes.

The spelling of the word Juwes is not understood today. People are as confused by it as by the idiom "Not for nothing", which is the example in this thread. But the connection you make is the result of the confusion of 1888!

In 1888, the confusion was as obvious as it is today, in this very thread.

They did not understand the GSG. They did not understand the double negative and the spelling in the word Juwes. They also gave contradictory statements about the double negative, as you did here, now, in 2017, about "Not for nothing". And they could not understand the word Juwes.

Pall Mall Gazette wrote:

"…we find in all the journals a note from Sir C. Warren to the effect that “no language or dialogue is known in which the word “Jews” is spelt “Juwes”. "

Pall Mall Gazette - Saturday 01 December 1888

The reason for their understanding of the word Juwes was exclusively the knowledge about Jews living in Whitechapel, since they could not understand the word Juwes and since they could not understand the text or the expressions in it.

Guessing that it meant "Jews" was a part of their obvious confusion when they tried to understand the GSG.


And remember that all of you probably have a better education than they had!

Thank you for you participation in this excercise.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Steve, my hunch, for what it's worth, which is not much, is that Pierre did have a suspect. A couple of things added up and he thought he really had something. Since then, however, every substantive piece of reasoning or 'evidence' he has presented on the boards has been conclusively shown to be ill-founded or hideously misinterpreted nonsense.

I no longer believe Pierre currently has a suspect - at least, not one that the historian Pierre thinks was the Ripper. I think he realized he had nothing some time ago, and became a Ripperologist instead.

[Elamarna]

Its like a Radio series back in the 40's Steve, teasing little plot tidbits strung together over a few episodes. "Surely this new clue must mean that....."

Its an attempt at cliffhanger style broadcasting. Soon all will be revealed.

Maybe Michael, I however am one of probably a small number who believes Pierre does indeed have a suspect.
Why he has decided not to name is the only real question; and it is indeed annoying to have lots of threads going apparently nowhere.

This particular thread seemed to be going nowhere after say post 2.


Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Surely that depends on if we are going to be told anything of interest, rather than a thread like this which seems to be without obvious purpose Henry?

Steve

Its like a Radio series back in the 40's Steve, teasing little plot tidbits strung together over a few episodes. "Surely this new clue must mean that....."

Its an attempt at cliffhanger style broadcasting. Soon all will be revealed.

[Henry Flower]

Surely that depends on if we are going to be told anything of interest, rather than a thread like this which seems to be without obvious purpose Henry?

Steve

Which of those options would your money be on, Steve?