When does many become many?

[The Good Michael]

I did wonder if it was a fishing expedition so I responded with due caution -

Caz,

That's her MO alright. I'm not even sure it's a HER anymore. She/he/it always throws out the line to see what will be caught, playing Polly Purebread in private. Still, mental illness takes all forms.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

If, Ben, you just calm down and stay away from accusations of foul play on my or unethical ditto on Leanders behalf, we should be just fine

And if you stay away from interminable repetition of previously challenged positions, I'll remain perfectly calm. Please don't ever think that it would be remotely discourteous to provide a link to an earlier discussion rather than writing it all out again as though it were never challenged. It's ensures that you don't irritate those who have challenged your position, and it doesn't waste unnecessary bandwidth.

It is likely that differing methods will apply on differing occasions, and whenever I give my wiew, you are of course entitled to give yours too

But as above, I'd dearly hope that no repetition were to occur, because when we'd find ourselves in a situation where you repeat, I repeat, and you counter repeat, and then the whole sorry game or cyber ping-pong will commence all over again. Try to avoid that if possible, please, and then we'll be in no danger of any tempers needing to "calm down."

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

He doesnt become a "suspect" as you say unless you talk to people who feel he is suspicious. There are no grounds for even considering him as suspect.

I'm afraid that's nonsense, Mike.

If you examine his reported actions and movements on the night of Kelly's death, and combine it with a knowledge of both the Whitechapel murders and the recorded behavioural traits of some known serial killers, then he is worthy of at least suspicion in anyone's book. I'm not saying that there can be no other explanation for these suspicions beyond his guilt, since non-guilty parties can often appear suspicious (just consider some of the earliest police suspects), but a "suspect" he certainly his.

You seem to have decided that a dismissed witness must automatically equate to a dismissed suspect, and that just isn't a permissible deduction. A police force in 1888 could easily have cast Hutchinson and his statement onto the ever-burgeoning heap of bogus leads and overlooked his potential culpability in the crimes in the process. Policing in general was in its infancy in 1888, and knowledge of serial crime stood at zero, effectively.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Caz,

That's her MO alright. I'm not even sure it's a HER anymore. She/he/it always throws out the line to see what will be caught, playing Polly Purebread in private. Still, mental illness takes all forms.

Cheers,

Mike

Well, if you recall, I did wonder if she was a he when she accused certain female posters (Ally included I think) of attacking her because they had penis envy. I thought that took the humble Freudian slip to a rather disturbing new level.

Hi Ben,

I admire your tenacity, but when the police were suddenly left in the lurch, with a big old hole where Hutch's suspect had been before their star witness blabbed to the papers, don't you think they'd have wanted to know what he was really doing in or around Miller's Court, two or three hours after Cox's sighting of Mary with Blotchy Face?

Do you seriously think they'd have let Hutch go on his merry way, assuming his intentions had been completely harmless, if they thought he had lied to them about the movements of his dead friend on her last night on earth?

Imagine if they had finally caught up with the ripper in the form of Blotchy Face. They could not have got him into court without dealing with the small matter of Hutch first, because BF would just say he had left Mary alive long before GH's claimed loitering. The defence would have a field day if the cops had to admit they had lost track of this discredited former witness without even establishing if he could have been the last man in instead of Blotchy. Blotchy would then have got off on the grounds of reasonable doubt.

At least Packer had a legitimate reason for being where he was on the night of Liz's murder. Hutch's claimed reasons for being where he claimed to be on the night of Mary's murder would have been up for further scrutiny the moment they stopped taking his suspect sighting seriously - unless they knew something we don't or didn't have the brains they were born with.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

don't you think they'd have wanted to know what he was really doing in or around Miller's Court, two or three hours after Cox's sighting of Mary with Blotchy Face?

Yes, I do, but there's a crucial difference between "wanting to know" something and actually knowing it, and in the case of Hutchinson's whereabouts and motivations on the night of Kelly's death, there was precious little chance of converting that natural curiosity into a tangible result. It's entirely possible that the police decided he must have been a publicity-seeker who had no connections to the crime or crime scene at all, in which case, we have no way of determining whether they were right or wrong to assume as much.

If, however, they registered the compatibility between Hutchinson's version of events and Lewis' account of the wideawake loiterer, it cannot be ruled out that they viewed him with at least some suspicion. We'd be left with precisely the same problem in that event - suspecting something or someone, as opposed to converting those suspicions into a concrete conclusion.

More often than not, the latter doesn't follow.

Green River Killer Gary Ridgway was suspected by the police, but because they couldn't convert those suspicions into confirmation or either guilt or innocence, they were forced to send him on his "merry way" until DNA evidence caught him ought decades later.

The defence would have a field day if the cops had to admit they had lost track of this discredited former witness without even establishing if he could have been the last man in instead of Blotchy.

In that scenario, the chances of Blotchy getting off the hook would depend on any other independent evidence accumulated by the police in support of Blotchy's guilt, and whether other eyewitnesses from previous murders were able to cement Mary Cox's identification. The defence that "maybe Hutchinson was there afterwards" would then seem a little forlorn in terms of justice-evasion. The above also presupposes that Hutchinson and Blotchy were separate entities.

Hutch's claimed reasons for being where he claimed to be on the night of Mary's murder would have been up for further scrutiny the moment they stopped taking his suspect sighting seriously - unless they knew something we don't or didn't have the brains they were born with.

Why are those the only two options?

What's wrong with the idea that they did entertain suspicions but couldn't prove their case either way? There are many, many shades of plausible grey between the two extremes of magical concrete proof that resolved the situation in a neat and tidy package, and the police being stupid.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. This takes us some considerable distance away from the original premise of the discussion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but rules are rules I guess.

[Sam Flynn]

Well, if you recall, I did wonder if she was a he when she accused certain female posters (Ally included I think) of attacking her because they had penis envy.

You mean they didn't have penis-envy, Caz? Sigh! I guess I'm on my own after all.

[Fisherman]

Okay!

Before I had my vacation, I promised Ben to contact the language experts at the university of Lund to find out what "and similar things" was referring to, in Frank Leanders sentence "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."

My stance is that it would be referring to all of the three things listed, whereas Ben told me that it would have been referring to only the last listed item, the function of the pen.

Here is Marit Juliens, senior lecturer and heading the centre of language and literature in Nordic languages at the University of Lund, answer to the question at hand:

"När man samordnar flera än två fraser så behöver man inte ha konjunktion mellan varje fras. Istället kan man sätta komma mellan fraserna, med undantag av de två sista, där man har en konjunktion (och, eller) - jfr. det Svenska skrivregler säger om användning av komma vid samordning.

Den rimliga tolkningen av din mening blir därmed att fraserna "H. är relativt ung vid det första skrivtillfället", "tillgängligt skrivutrymme", "pennans funktion" och "liknande" är samordnade, och det betyder att "liknande" syftar på de tre föregående fraserna.

Hälsningar,

Marit Julien
docent
Språk- och litteraturcentrum, nordiska språk
Lunds universitet

In translation:

When one coordinates more than two phrases, there is no need to have conjunctions inbetween each of the phrases. Instead, one can put commas between the phrases, with an exception for the two finishing ones where a conjunction (and, or) – compare what Swedish rules of writing says about the use of commas when coordinating.
The reasonable interpretation of your phrase thus becomes that the phrases ”H. is relatively young at the first writing occasion”, ”writing space afforded”, ”the function of the pen” and ”similar things” are coordinated, and that means that ”similar things” refers to the three preceding phrases.

Greetings,

Marit Julien
Senior lecturer
The centre of language and literature, Nordic languages
Lund university

Nothing much to add there, I should think.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Fish.

My stance is that it would be referring to all of the three things listed, whereas Ben told me that it would have been referring to only the last listed item, the function of the pen.

That stance was based on the fact that the specifically cited "explanations" had no similarity with eachother. Since it makes no sense whatsoever to describe something as similar to several other "things" that have no obvious commonality with eachother, I assumed he meant "simililar" to the last mentioned explanation, which concerned the "function of the pen". I agree with your contact that it would be rather unusual to include "and similar things" in reference to the last mentioned factor only, but I can't see how any other explanation makes any sense given the lack of similarity between the suggested explanations for the handwriting differences.

Thanks again, though, and I extend the same to Marit Julien.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

The obvious and topic-related commonality you are looking for, Ben, is that the age of the writer, the space afforded and the function of the pen ALL have a tendency to influence the handstyle, just as has been pointed out before.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

In which case, you'd say "other things", Fish, because the explanations cited by Leander have no "similarity" with eachother in isolation from the handwriting alteration issue.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

Ben writes:
"In which case, you'd say "other things", Fish, because the explanations cited by Leander have no "similarity" with eachother in isolation from the handwriting alteration issue."

Other things with the built-in similarity that they all could influence the handwriting, you mean? That similarity is all you need to open up for the linguistic choice Leander made. If he was not to be allowed such a construction, then it must be weighed in that no two parametres of his choice, illustrating things that may influence the handwriting would be exactly similar! Where would we draw the line for what should be condoned, and what should not? Would it be OK to speak of afforded space, angle of the table and similar things? Could we use age of the writer, physical capacities of the writer and similar things? Or would Leander never be allowed to speak of similar things when listing the different parametres of his choice?

Thanks to Marit Julien, we have the answer: Coordinating phrases in a context like this means that ALL the given parametres belong to the context. And when the parametres all have a factor in common, it does in no way mean that this becomes less applicable.

If you once again disagree; fine. I have done nothing but what I said I would do: I have found out how the phrase should be read according to the expertise in the field, and if that leaves anybody discontended, angry, frustrated, protesting, mocking, questioning or pointing and laughing - or similar things (you could see that one coming, could you not?) - there is only so much I can do about it. I have argued my case and I have had it corroborated by a top authority and I am quite accustomed to the fact that such a combination has failed to impress you before.
Me, Iīm quite happy though.

Fisherman
headed for other threads

[Ben]

I don't disagree with Julien's position that, generally speaking, "similiar things" is used in reference to all aforementioned "things", and not just the last one, but that's because the vast majority of sentences so constructed contain factors, objects and events that are similar to eachother in isolation. If I provide a list of "things" that include hurricances, volcanos, earthquakes and tornados, you'd have no trouble recognising the inherent similarity and the obvious theme - natural disasters. Nor would you have any trouble thinking of "similar things" that also belong to that central theme.

We discovered from your examples that "similar things" was used in precisely this context, i.e. in reference to objects, events and behavioural traits that share an obvious similarity with eachother even in isolation from the given context. If you say that cancer, a heart attack, a stoke and similar things can result in death, the sentence would make sense, but if you replace cancer with "charging rhino" and heart attack with "enemy" fire, the "and similiar things" is no longer applicable. You'd observe that all three may easily result in death along with many other different things, and so avoid confusion.

I have no intention of "mocking" anyone, thank you, nor am I angry. I have no need to be, since I'm in broad agreement with Julien. If you think "your case" has been corroborated, fair enough. I don't agree that it has.

headed for other threads

The ones I'm currently contributing to, naturally.

Just kidding.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"f I provide a list of "things" that include hurricances, volcanos, earthquakes and tornados, you'd have no trouble recognising the inherent similarity and the obvious theme - natural disasters."

You are absolutely correct, Ben! I would have no trouble recognizing that these things were listed together because of their inherent common denominator of being natural disasters. And I agree that speaking of a flooding or a woodfire would be speaking of similar things, for the simple reason that they involve the natural disaster factor too.

But I would very much challenge that these things are in any way alike! We are speaking of water, fire, rupturing ground, lavafloods and so on - all extremly dissimilar to each other - in fact so dissimilar that one (water) may dissolve another (fire). The fact of the matter is that their ONLY likeness is that they are listed as natural disasters. In all other aspects, they differ.

Letīs take another look at what this leaves us with: It leaves us with an array of different things that have a common factor that allows for us to speak of yet other things, related to them only by the factor of being natural disasters (for example an explosion caused by leaking natural gas or a tsunami or an icemountain calfed from a glacier and dropping onto a ship) that make up a group that you consider consists of things similar to each other.
Does that similarity lie anywhere else that in the sommon denominator that they are all natural disasters? Do they look the same? Smell the same? Occur in the same area? Kill in the same fashion?
Are they hard to tell apart: "Good grief, I am being fried to death in this woodfire. Or is it a hurricane, or perhaps a tsunami? They are so similar that I canīt tell which one it is!"

None of this applies. They are totally and extremely dissimilar BUT FOR THE ONE FACTOR THAT THEY COUNT AS NATURAL DISASTERS!

Same thing goes for function of the pen, age of the writer, leaning of the surface you write on, the space afforded for writing, physical shortcomings, sudden gusts of air moving the paper you write on, intoxication making it difficult to write, spasms, the chair you are sitting in, the position you are standing in, the level of anxiety - they are all dissimilar to a smaller or larger extent on the surface of it, but they all share the common denominator of having an influence on how you write.
They are dissimilar but share a similarity, just like natural disasters are dissimilar but share a similarity.

It is a case that corroborates itself, once you give it some thought. Alternatively, you give it even more thought, and search for any reason to avoid this insight. Itīs anybodys choice.

And thatīs no kidding on my behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hang on...

You just said you're headed for other threads.

But the moment I respond, you're back to this one.

You said "nothing much to add",

Now you're "adding" loads.

But I would very much challenge that these things are in any way alike!

Oh, come off it, Fisherman. Anyone can see that flooding, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados all belong under the obvious canopy of natural disasters. If someone listed those things and then asked you what you thought the central theme was, you'd say natural disasters, and I have no doubt whatsoever that if you were then asked to provide an example of a "similar thing" you'd cite another example of a natural disaster. However different you're now claiming these things are, the salient point is that by listing a handful of them, the reader is able to identify the theme immediately even in isolation from a specific context.

But what happens if I provide you with a list that includes hippos, the Eifel Tower and a meteor? You'd have no idea as to the central theme, nor would you be able to provide examples of "similar" things unless I provided a specific context, which, in this case, is things that can injur or kill you if they fall on you. In isolation, they are not similar, just as age and pen function are not similar to eachother. So, if I wanted to provide you with a list of things than can cause injury or death if they fell on you, I might cite those three objects and a very diverse range of other things. That way, we're making sense.

You can describe things as "similar" if you are able to identify both the central theme and "similar things" even in the absence of a specific context, and the natural disasters mentioned in your original example fit the bill perfectly in this regard. Age and "available space" simply do not. They are not similar to eachother, so it makes better sense to say that these explanations might have come into play along with other/different things - not "similar", because they aren't.

Samr thing goes for function of the pen, age of the writer, leaning of the surface you write on, the space afforded for writing, physical shortcomings, sudden gusts of air moving the paper you write on, intoxication, making it difficult to write, spasms, the chair you are sitting in, the position you are standing in, the level of anxiety

I cannot possibly read "age, function of the pen, available space and similar things" and say to myself: Aha, he must mean similar to, I dunno, levels of anxiety! I cannot make the connection because levels of anxiety isn't "similar" to any of the three specifically cited differences. If on the hand, he had mentioned "other" things to those three, that would neturally encompass levels of anxiety. It's less restrictive.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"You just said you're headed for other threads.

But the moment I respond, you're back to this one."

Mmmm, ītis a pity, is it not? But then again, as long as things need a bit of correction, Iīm happy to oblige! Like this:

"Oh, come off it, Fisherman. Anyone can see that flooding, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados all belong under the obvious canopy of natural disasters."

Yup. And anyone but you-know-who can see that the writers age, the function of the pen and the writing spoace afforded all belong under the obvious canopy of things influencing the writing abilities.

"However different you're now claiming these things are, the salient point is that by listing a handful of them, the reader is able to identify the theme immediately even in isolation from a specific context."

Exactly! And when we were speaking with Leander we did not even have to bother to look for the context. We knew from the outset that we were going to discuss handwriting.

"what happens if I provide you with a list that includes hippos, the Eifel Tower and a meteor?"

You will have provided a list of things that is not as immediately relevant to the discussion as the two other lists we have been discussing, BUT once you find a common factor, you have also found a similarity (they may fall on you), and then you are actually allowed to speak of "hippos, Eiffel Towers and meteors and similar things" IN THAT CONTEXT. It will not mean that they are similar in any other instance, but that goes for natural disasters too, remember?

"Age and "available space" simply do not. They are not similar to each other"

Oh yes; in the same way that natural disasters have a factor in common, so do they. In the same way that natural disasters donīt look, smell or feel similar, so donīt they. But the context - and the following similarity in that respect - is there.

"I cannot possibly read "age, function of the pen, available space and similar things" and say to myself: Aha, he must mean similar to, I dunno, levels of anxiety!"

Then try "In the same way that space afforded and the function of the pen may affect the writing, so may anxiety. In that respect these things that differ on the surface have a similar quality" and "In the same way that vulcano eruptions and earthquakes may be described as natural disasters, so may a tsunami. In that respect, these things that differ on the surface have a similar quality".
The more specific that quality is, the more people will recognize the correctness of the grouping. And influence on handstyle and/or belonging to natural disasters are VERY specific qualities, whereas falling on you, like hippos and meteors, is a lot more unspecific.

The best,
Fisherman
(who may be around some more - who knows? But I would like you to see what I am speaking of)







Anyone can see that flooding, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados all belong under the obvious canopy of natural disasters.