One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

So far, 'one-off' hasn't been cracked (it may never be), but to suggest that proves the diary is a fake is absurd.

I don't understand that comment. If "one off instance" is an anachronism, and doesn't belong to the period, then it means the Diary wasn't written at the time it was supposed to be and is, therefore, a fake. Surely that must be right.

[Iconoclast]

I don't understand that comment. If "one off instance" is an anachronism, and doesn't belong to the period, then it means the Diary wasn't written at the time it was supposed to be and is, therefore, a fake. Surely that must be right.

It means, Lord Orsam - as you must surely realise - that MrBarnett feels that the evidence of other so-called anachronisms points very firmly to the possibility that 'one off instance' may go the same way one day, and that - even if it doesn't - it absolutely cannot be said to be one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary.

"It hasn't been cracked (it may never be)".

"We just can't shake it".

And MrBarnett is a non-believer!

[David Orsam]

It means, Lord Orsam - as you must surely realise - that MrBarnett feels that the evidence of other so-called anachronisms points very firmly to the possibility that 'one off instance' may go the same way one day, and that - even if it doesn't - it absolutely cannot be said to be one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary.

"It hasn't been cracked (it may never be)".

"We just can't shake it".

And MrBarnett is a non-believer!

If he was saying that he's wrong. He doesn't seem to realise that his successes on the other words or expressions throws into sharp relief the fact that he simply cannot find an example of "one off instance" or similar anywhere in the period and, boy, can we be sure he's tried.

I know he's never going to "crack" it because I know how the phrase evolved and it's simply not possible for it to have existed in 1889.

Even Feldman accepted that "any linguistic anomalies would prove this diary a fake".

"one off instance" is an absolute classic linguistic anomaly. What is absurd is to say that the anachronistic use of this expression does not prove the diary to be a fake. It most certainly does.

[Iconoclast]

So far, 'one-off' hasn't been cracked (it may never be), but to suggest that proves the diary is a fake is absurd.

As much as I love your post, MrBarnett (and I certainly do, thank you very much), could we all please desist from giving Lord Orsam's theory greater credence by adding in face-saving hyphens where they absolutely did not exist?

If we are allowed to add in hyphens which James Maybrick chose not to add, can we do so in the appropriate place?

Maybrick may very well have meant to write "one off-instance". The fact that he missed out the critical hyphen has led some (actually, one very aristocratic person - no names, no pack drill) to argue that he meant "one-off instance" which - understandably (if this was the anachronism Lord Orsam paints it to be) - would have confused the less brilliant amongst us.

Damn, I said no names!

[Iconoclast]

"one off instance" is an absolute classic linguistic anomaly. What is absurd is to say that the anachronistic use of this expression does not prove the diary to be a fake. It most certainly does.

Doesn't.

[MrBarnett]

I don't understand that comment. If "one off instance" is an anachronism, and doesn't belong to the period, then it means the Diary wasn't written at the time it was supposed to be and is, therefore, a fake. Surely that must be right.

David,

Do you have proof that the phrase is an anachronism (no need to gild the lily with 'and doesn't belong to the period)?

I'm guessing not.

If you'd asked me a year or so ago, I'd have said that both 'topping oneself' and 'one-off' were 20th century constructions, first heard, by me at least, in the Sweeney or something similar.

But I wouldn't have said that the use of either of them in the diary made it 'impossible' that it was written in the 1880s.

It seems that even the OED experts don't know everything. I know I don't. How about you? (Silly question)


Gary

[Sam Flynn]

How about a government?

[ATTACH]18618[/ATTACH]

Same difference, Gary. The spreading of murder/rapine is clearly being used to refer to a group, i.e. the Government. It is furthermore metaphorical - nobody was suggesting that the previous government physically committed individual acts of rape and murder all over the world; instead, it's clearly an allusion to the Government's policies having caused death and crime overseas. That's not the same as an individual "spreading" death and crime on his own, let alone "spreading" bodily harm.

'May' followed by 'mayhem' slips off the tongue more easily than 'May' followed by 'bodily injury', don't you think?

I was referring to the sense of the word there, not suggesting that "This May causes bodily injury" was an improvement to the text, hence the italics and the (?!!!) after the line.

The writer was clearly using "spreads mayhem" in the "chaos/confusion" sense, as is perfectly clear from the context - the Blind Man's Buff cartoon; Maybrick's "hahahahahahas"; his amusement at the headless chicken police; his chuckle at the expense of the doctors and Jews who got the blame for the Ripper's deeds.

[Sam Flynn]

If you'd asked me a year or so ago, I'd have said that both 'topping oneself' and 'one-off' were 20th century constructions, first heard, by me at least, in the Sweeney or something similar.

It's "one-off instance", specifically, Gary - that's very important.

As to the others, as I've pointed out in the past, Gary, whilst individual words/phrases might be explicable, at a stretch, the presence of several such words/phrases in such a short document is more damning by far.

[David Orsam]

David,

Do you have proof that the phrase is an anachronism (no need to gild the lily with 'and doesn't belong to the period)?

I'm guessing not.

But you are guessing wrong because I have previously set out at some length, with evidence, the evolution of the phrase from a mere quantity, to a unique manufactured item, design or pattern to a wider more metaphorical meaning to mean a unique person or event. This evolutionary transformation can be traced through research which I have carried out and it shows that the final stage simply did not exist until the twentieth century.

If you'd asked me a year or so ago, I'd have said that both 'topping oneself' and 'one-off' were 20th century constructions, first heard, by me at least, in the Sweeney or something similar.

But I wouldn't have said that the use of either of them in the diary made it 'impossible' that it was written in the 1880s.

But that's you just speaking from the top of your head. I've actually checked this out in respect of "one off instance" (or similar). It simply did not exist in the nineteenth century. That's the reason why neither you nor anyone else has been able to find a single example in over 25 years.

It seems that even the OED experts don't know everything. I know I don't. How about you? (Silly question)

No, I don't know everything, so, yes, it was silly question, but I've researched the origins of "one off" and I've seen it evolve in various sources in front of my very eyes.

[Iconoclast]

It's "one-off instance", specifically, Gary - that's very important.

As to the others, as I've pointed out in the past, Gary, whilst individual words/phrases might be explicable, at a stretch, the presence of several such words/phrases in such a short document is more damning by far.

I'll politely remind everyone again that it is not.

It is "one off instance". Not quite as categorical, I think you'll agree, however much you attempt to massage this with your quaint "whilst individual words/phrases might be explicable, at a stretch, the presence of several such words/phrases in such a short document is more damning".

Please pay attention to the lack of a hyphen, fellow sleuths.

[Sam Flynn]

Maybrick may very well have meant to write "one off-instance".

You've suggested that before, Ike, and it doesn't get any more convincing, not least because there is no such thing as an "off-instance".

[David Orsam]

You've suggested that before, Ike, and it doesn't get any less convincing, not least because there is no such thing as an "off-instance".

Seconded. And the fact that someone has to resort to such nonsense to defend the Diary simply shows that the game's up.

[Iconoclast]

Seconded. And the fact that someone has to resort to such nonsense to defend the Diary simply shows that the game's up.

I understand your hostility, gentlemen. Your sole stick to beat the journal is used up by my simple observation. We get it. You don't like it. Sorry and all that, but you need to get over yourselves.

I don't see Maybrick sitting there with a lexicon double-checking that his private thoughts would be valid over a hundred years later. I see him as writing 'live', unscripted, changing course, within a sentence, within a phrase.

I see him writing "a one" and then I see him realising he means "off-instance" and possibly then realising that that sentence not only repeats the indefinite article but also uses a phrase - "off instance" which isn't common parlance. And then I see him simply not caring because it conveys what he means. It was an 'off' instance - a moment when he was 'not at his best' (a term for domestic violence which I would imagine he would find acceptable to think in the LVP where quite rightly it would not be today). Like people who today are 'off their game', I see him capturing the fact that he felt his abuse of Florrie was an 'off' moment which - and we cannot deny him the right to do so - he chose to describe as an "off instance".

It's perfectly plausible when you stop seeing Maybrick in terms of black and white and instead see him in the glorious technicolour of the actual 1888 and 1889.

[Sam Flynn]

It's perfectly plausible when you stop seeing Maybrick in terms of black and white and instead see him in the glorious technicolour

Quite fitting, given that our "Maybrick" probably owned a colour telly.

[MrBarnett]

But you are guessing wrong because I have previously set out at some length, with evidence, the evolution of the phrase from a mere quantity, to a unique manufactured item, design or pattern to a wider more metaphorical meaning to mean a unique person or event. This evolutionary transformation can be traced through research which I have carried out and it shows that the final stage simply did not exist until the twentieth century.



But that's you just speaking from the top of your head. I've actually checked this out in respect of "one off instance" (or similar). It simply did not exist in the nineteenth century. That's the reason why neither you nor anyone else has been able to find a single example in over 25 years.



No, I don't know everything, so, yes, it was silly question, but I've researched the origins of "one off" and I've seen it evolve in various sources in front of my very eyes.

David,

I don't think I asked you if you had 'evidence', I didn't need to ask if you'd posted a million words in support of your opinion, I believe I asked if you had proof.

A simple yes or no is all that is required.

If, as I suspect, the answer is no, then it's not 'impossible' that the diary is contemporary with the Whitechapel murders, is it? Unless you have other 'proof'

Have you read the title of this thread?


Gary