Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When does many become many?

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

  • When does many become many?

    Right, here we are then!

    This is an issue on which I need as many as possible to comment! We need to settle a very specific matter. sorting under the big Leander war.

    The facts of the case are these:

    In Frank Leanders first post, he wrote, in an effort to describe what could have had caused the differences inbetween the signatures he was looking at:

    "The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things."

    In a later post, he worded the same matter:

    "It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".

    Inbetween these posts, I had stated that Leander obviously was of the opinion that there could have been many explanations to the differences.

    When Leander in his later post used te word "many" to describe the amount of possible explanations to the changes, Ben tells me that this would have been because I had "put words in his mouth". He also tells me that Leanders first description does not tally with the word "many". He goes on to claim that Leander by this switch of vocabulary shows us that he is not circumspect, and he says - on the whole - that the reason for Leanders changed phrasing would have been that he had grown tired of me, and needed to fob me off.

    Once again, this is quote one:

    "The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things."

    In it, Leander listed at the very least five possible explanations to the differences, elaborating on three:

    1: The age of the writer
    2. The surrounding circumstances as available writing space
    3. The function of the pen

    ..and to that he added

    4: Similar things

    ...using the word "thingS, that is plural.

    That implies that he has exemplified three different things, and then added that there may have been other things involved too, of similar character. And the way I read him, he leaves the possible number of explanations open.

    Quote number two again:

    "It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".

    Here, Leander does not exemplify - he instead chooses to use the word "many".

    According to Ben, these two phrasings go to show that Leander has changed his mind, and he identifies the probable reason as me "putting words in" Leanders mouth.

    My suggestion is that the two phrasings describe the exact same thing: That there were many possible explanations to the differences.

    The choice of the word "many" is what mostly seems to annoy Ben. But "many" is by far the most common word used in Sweden to describe a multitude. The Swedish word, by the way, is built on the same material as it´s English equivalent: many - många.

    Are there any one-word synonyms that he could instead have used? Yes, one springs to mind, the Swedish equivalent of the British "numerous": "åtskilliga". But this is a word that is very rarely used, and it mostly comes to use in more formal texts. It is seldom used in spoken language.
    Apart from this, there are constructions of two or more words that can mean "many": En hel hop, en samling, en ansenlig skara. But none of these are used even remotely as many times as the extremely common "många".

    A googling of the two words "många" and "åtskilliga", gives at hand that "åtskilliga" occurs 414 000 times, whereas "många" gets a number of 27 900 000.

    What I need you to do is to chime in, all of you if possible, and tell me if you are of the meaning that Leander gave messages that swore against each other as quoted. Did he prove himself not circumspect? Can you identify any will on Leanders behalf to fob me off by adjusting to my wishes here?
    Please refrain from the other issues of the Leander analysis, and focus on this issue only!

    What is your meaning? Tell me, please!

    the best,
    Fisherman
    who plans to eat out tonight - but I will return to have a look at your verdict later this evening. And please don´t forget to pass that verdict!
    Last edited by Fisherman; 07-23-2009, 06:46 PM.

  • #2
    I've got an idea -

    Why don't you ask Leander these questions, Fisherman?

    Surely he himself is in the best position to know whether he 'fobbed you off' or not?

    For myself, I don't see what was wrong with his first response - why not just leave it at that?

    Now that the whole business with what Leander said and didn't say, meant and didn't mean, is completely out of hand - do you think many will really enjoy entering into yet more lengthy wrangling on the subject?

    Ask Leander if you have doubts. Even if people do tell you what they think, what will it prove to you?

    For all you know, they could be fobbing you off as well!

    If you are in fact asking people to pick 'sides' here, then please don't. You may want a war with Ben but not everybody shares your desire.

    Why can't we all be friends?

    Regretfully,

    Jane x

    Comment


    • #3
      Jane Welland asks:

      "Why don't you ask Leander these questions, Fisherman?

      Surely he himself is in the best position to know whether he 'fobbed you off' or not?"

      He is. And I have. He said that it was a malicious interpretation on Ben´s behalf.

      What is you own wiew, then: Was leander entitled to use the wordings he did without having it said that he had changed his mind?

      The best,
      Fisherman

      Comment


      • #4
        Come on now, I need some answers to my question! Was Leander entitled to phrase himself as he did on the "many" subject?

        The best,
        Fisherman

        Comment


        • #5
          Have yo noticed,

          How quiet it is around here?

          Ask yourself why?

          Best wishes, Fisherman

          Jane x

          Comment


          • #6
            You tell me, Jane - if the prerogative of interpreting belongs to you. One of the reasons may be that people will perhaps feel intimidated by what has been going on on the other threads, whereas another may be that many realize that Ben will not change his mind no matter what.

            It´s anybodys guess, Jane - and certainly not yours only.

            The best,
            Fisherman

            Comment


            • #7
              If I can say this in a gentlemanly fashion.....worrying about anything that relates to George Hutchinson as far as the Ripper cases are concerned is without tangible merit to the furthering of knowledge about the real victims and the real cuplrit(s)...based on the cumulative data that is available.

              Being so preoccupied with this man makes little or no sense to me personally...he wasnt a situation that the contemporary lawmakers worried about...he was formally tagged as a "discredited witness".... just like Packer is... less formally. Yet I dont see hundred page threads about Mr P.

              Beating this mans writing and reputation up is completely unnecessary and tiresome quite frankly...its why I dont contribute much to those threads anymore.

              Worrying about who was the real George is like worrying about what makes George Bush tick....who cares anymore.

              Best regards Fisherman and Jane

              Comment


              • #8
                All very sensible, Mike - but you forgot to answer the question! Was leander entitled to express himself as he did, quoted in post one? Take a deep breath, Mike, and let me know! I fully respect if you wish not to answer it, but I would much appreciate any bid on this one!

                The best,
                Fisherman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Nobody, as far as I'm aware, has seriously suggested that Packer was the Ripper, Mike, still less written any book on about it. Hutchinson has at least two to his name - or three, if one includes Eddleston's Encyclopedia, which favours Hutchinson over other suspects.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi again,

                    I realize that Packers not the same fodder for speculating about Jack that Hutchinson is Sam...Im just saying that regardless of who thinks he should be a suspect, now or then, there is nothing with which to support that allegation.. aside from speculation about the possibility he was indeed the Wideawake Hat man. Which is a part of a story that wasnt believed by the investigators.

                    As per your request Fisherman, I think "many" is being used to allow for possibilities that include that the signatures were not from the same person.

                    Is that what you were asking for?

                    All the best FM, Sam, Jane.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by perrymason View Post
                      Being so preoccupied with this man makes little or no sense to me personally...he wasnt a situation that the contemporary lawmakers worried about...he was formally tagged as a "discredited witness".... just like Packer is... less formally. Yet I dont see hundred page threads about Mr P.

                      Beating this mans writing and reputation up is completely unnecessary and tiresome quite frankly...its why I dont contribute much to those threads anymore.
                      Well said, Michael. And 'tiresome' is the perfect word for these Hutchinson debates. As far as I'm concerned, if George murdered Mary Kelly he would have to have been the stupidest murderer in the history of the world to walk into a police station and give that statement. Also, whether Hutch was Toppy or not is really neither here nor there in the last analysis.

                      Best wishes
                      allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
                        Also, whether Hutch was Toppy or not is really neither here nor there in the last analysis.
                        True, but it'd still be useful to be able to put a face to the name, Stephen, and a biography based on something more than hearsay and/or speculation. Comparative rarities in the Ripper case, especially at the Kelly end of the spectrum.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Mike writes:

                          "As per your request Fisherman, I think "many" is being used to allow for possibilities that include that the signatures were not from the same person.
                          Is that what you were asking for?"

                          No Mike, it was not - read the first post and you will get it!

                          The best!
                          Fisherman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ehrm...Sam, Stephen... An answer perhaps, to the question put in post one? Maybe? Perhaps? Please...?

                            the best,
                            Fisherman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi Fish

                              I fully agree with your understanding of what Leander said - it's just that I'd rather not get involved in another game of cyber ping-pong about it.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X