One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven't said Harrison is being untruthful. I haven't said she has made anything up.

It's obvious she got into a terrible muddle with her notes and her memory. She was told something in 1993 by Dr Tony Deeson, who might have found something in Traynors' archives, but she never managed to verify it. In 2003 she seems to think she got the information directly from Traynors but probably forgot it was from Deeson. She never saw any document herself.

The end result is that we cannot rely on this supposed information.

But it's 'possible' that the phrase was in use in the 1860s. The information she received could 'possibly' have been correct?

Herlock

[Pcdunn]

David has explained his research into this term more than once on this thread.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1274&page=236

Go back to the page in the link above, circa December 2016, glance a few pages before it and beyond it, and you should find the answers to your questions.

[GUT]

But it's 'possible' that the phrase was in use in the 1860s. The information she received could 'possibly' have been correct?

Herlock

And I guess it's possible granny was a bloke, but really....

The constant "It's possible" over every issue about the diary is boring, sure maybe something is possible but when it is highly unlikely it needs to be accepted.

David has researched this from top to bottom unless you can show that "one off" was used to mean unique in the 19th Century, not simply one you have to accept it.

[GUT]

One fact you cry

The Ink
I reply

The only test to date it puts it between 1909 and 1932.

But no that's not undeniable, because people here that don't accept the science deny it.

[David Orsam]

How have you worked out how the expression evolved? How can you know that the earliest use of 'one off' ,that you admit must have existed, must only have meant 'one off the stock list?' And not a unique item/object/part?

That it existed at all in the nineteenth century is, I have said, only inference because there are no direct examples but "one off the stock list" is the best explanation I have heard, see the discussion here:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=179067

although see this slighlyt different account too:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-one4.htm

I also rely on the following post by a member of this thread called Graham who has told us that he was once a member of the Institute of British Foundrymen and had access access to engineering drawings dating back to the latter half of the 19th century and who said in #1619:

"re: the phrase "one off", this is old engineering-speak. Most of you probably won't know what I'm talking about, but take say an engineering drawing of the cylinder of a steam-engine. There could well be a sub-drawing, on the same sheet, of a valve, let's say four of which were required for the cylinder. The drawing would clearly state, "four off", i.e., four valves are needed. It, and "one off", are certainly a lot older that 1925 or whenever."

One of the articles I found in a technical journal from the early 20th century is still referring to "one off" and "two off" etc.

I can't do much better than that. My acceptance of the existence of "one off" in the 19th century is a concession in respect of the above. But I have seen no proof.

The dictionaries tell us that the origin of "one off" in the English language to mean unique is from the 1920s. In my research I have brought it down a bit earlier than that by a few years but it's all from obscure manufacturing or engineering journals. It hadn't at that point made it's way into general usage in the English language at all. And NEVER EVER as a metaphor to mean a person or an event until the around the Second World War.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have read his points. I'm not too stupid to understand them. He makes the point about a linear progression but, as far as I can see, the step from phase 1 to phase 2 appears to be an assumption on David's part as I can't see what else he's basing it on. He's saying that the first uses of 'one-off' would mean just a single item( i.e. One that potentially could be replicated at some time in the future) which then morphed into 'one off' as a unique, never to be repeated item. What proof is there that 'one-off' hasn't always been used in both ways? At the moment I can only see that David is making an assumption. Maybe he does have proof but I haven't seen it yet.

Herlock

[David Orsam]

And when you say welcome to the forum I'm assuming that you mean that anyone entering here should expect to be spoken down to?

It means you need to develop a thick skin and not be too sensitive to criticism.

[David Orsam]

You said 'as far as we know.' When making your point about this phrase and it's meaning 'one' as opposed to 'unique'. So, what you mean is, you don't know. Not for certain.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you quote me in context? Because I AM certain about my conclusion.

[David Orsam]

But it's 'possible' that the phrase was in use in the 1860s. The information she received could 'possibly' have been correct?

No, there is absolutely no way it was being used in the 1860s to mean unique. What might have happened is that Deeson had seen a reference on an 1860s building document to "one off", referring to a quantity, and he or Shirley has assumed that the existence of this phrase on a document must have meant special or unique. That's not a surprising assumption.

But I have to repeat that there is no actual evidence that Traynors or the document ever existed or, if it did, that it had been correctly dated.

[David Orsam]

I have read his points. I'm not too stupid to understand them. He makes the point about a linear progression but, as far as I can see, the step from phase 1 to phase 2 appears to be an assumption on David's part as I can't see what else he's basing it on. He's saying that the first uses of 'one-off' would mean just a single item( i.e. One that potentially could be replicated at some time in the future) which then morphed into 'one off' as a unique, never to be repeated item. What proof is there that 'one-off' hasn't always been used in both ways? At the moment I can only see that David is making an assumption. Maybe he does have proof but I haven't seen it yet.

You can forget about phase 1 if you want. I don't care. It's not important and was only ever a concession by me.

The key factor is that phase 3 cannot come before phase 2. And the only evidence of phase 2 is twentieth century (corroborated by every single dictionary and phrase book and expert in existence).

Like I have said but you don't seem to absorb, if the author of the Diary used "one off" in a phase 3 sense in 1888-89 he would be the first known person in the world to do so - despite there being literally millions of surviving 19th century documents of multiple forms - and it was never known to have been done again by anyone in the world in the following 50 years.

It's simply not credible.

[GUT]

You can forget about phase 1 if you want. I don't care. It's not important and was only ever a concession by me.

The key factor is that phase 3 cannot come before phase 2. And the only evidence of phase 2 is twentieth century (corroborated by every single dictionary and phrase book and expert in existence).

Like I have said but you don't seem to absorb, if the author of the Diary used "one off" in a phase 3 sense in 1888-89 he would be the first known person in the world to do so - despite there being literally millions of surviving 19th century documents of multiple forms - and it was never known to have been done again by anyone in the world in the following 50 years.

It's simply not credible.

But possible, he says.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you quote me in context? Because I AM certain about my conclusion.

Firstly about being sensitive to criticism. Ive simply challenged a point. I don't speak to anyone as if they're an idiot. But if that's the norm I won't mention it again.

The point that I'm questioning is this, again:

You say that you've deduced a lateral progression of the phrase 'one off' as used in industry. Phase one, a single item, 'one off the stock' as you phrase it. Phase two, a unique item. My question is, what facts have you based that progression on? I ask because, for example, my grandfather was a patternmaker in the 50s and 60s. I recall him telling me that customers would come to him for 'one off' jobs. Jobs that would never be asked for again because they were one time use only. Therefore, unique by definition. So how can you be certain that the original use of the phrase 'one off,' whenever that was, couldn't have meant both variations? How can you know that the second usage only came into use over a period of time?

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

If only a few people were aware of the phrase and they did use it in private correspondence why is it impossible that none of this private correspondence has survived? What reason would they have for keeping private letters

[David Orsam]

You say that you've deduced a lateral progression of the phrase 'one off' as used in industry. Phase one, a single item, 'one off the stock' as you phrase it. Phase two, a unique item. My question is, what facts have you based that progression on? I ask because, for example, my grandfather was a patternmaker in the 50s and 60s. I recall him telling me that customers would come to him for 'one off' jobs. Jobs that would never be asked for again because they were one time use only. So how can you be certain that the original use of the phrase 'one off,' whenever that was, couldn't have meant both variations? How can you know that the second usage only came into use over a period of time?

Unless you mean that your grandfather was a patternmaker in the 1850s and 60s I'm not sure of the relevance of your example. I know what a "one off job" is and I know that the phrase existed from the early 20th century.

It's possible that you didn't read my post a few minutes ago so I'll repeat it:

"The key factor is that phase 3 cannot come before phase 2. And the only evidence of phase 2 is twentieth century (corroborated by every single dictionary and phrase book and expert in existence).

Like I have said but you don't seem to absorb, if the author of the Diary used "one off" in a phase 3 sense in 1888-89 he would be the first known person in the world to do so - despite there being literally millions of surviving 19th century documents of multiple forms - and it was never known to have been done again by anyone in the world in the following 50 years."

I think the Diary was produced 25 years ago and you can be sure that people have looked but no nineteenth century examples of its usage as a "one off job" or similar have ever been found let alone as "one off instance" or similar.

What more can you possibly want?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm sure that if research was done someone could find more than one colloquially used phrase that didn't survive until today in private corespondance. It wouldn't mean that no one had ever used it.