One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[pinkmoon]

I went back to an alehouse I used to frequent, and I told the landlady me money was spent...

Sorry, but this is the only acceptable usage of the verb 'to frequent'. End of argument.

Mike

Very similar to the language used in Shakespeare's limericks

[caz]

...if my conjections (ouch) be correct.

A simple browse of the British Library newspaper digital search facility using the word "frequent" for the years 1888-1890 will show that the word was used as I showed in my 1887 dictionary definition, i.e. to visit etc. frequently or often. What a pointless debate this is.

I agree, Stewart. It tells us bugger all about the date the diary was writ or who wrot it.

I mean, even Macnaghten cocked up on occasion (see title of post). His ripper conjecture (defined as 'an opinion formed without proof; an opinion formed on slight or defective evidence or none at all; a guess') may or may not have been correct, and he was a whizz with the subjunctive, but his 'conjections' ruined the whole effect.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don't think it's completely pointless, MayBea, when the inappropriate usage of a word or phrase might indicate something about its author.

But Sam, its author was pretending to write as an invented character - Jack the Ripper in the form of James Maybrick. Did you not see my Eccles example? Please don't tell me you think Eccles really existed and could only speak like that!

The point with the Diary is that there are many examples if inappropriate, incorrect or incompetent uses of words and phrases - "frequented my club" is but one instance among many. Taken together, these inappropriate usages indicate to me the author/s attempts to write in a (modestly) sophisticated style with which they are clearly unfamiliar.

That's just one possibility, yes, but it wouldn't help with the who or the when even if you were right. Another possibility is that the author's intention was to pepper the text with inappropriate, incorrect and incompetent uses of words and phrases because the character had to be inherently flawed.

If all you had was a diary written ostensibly by Mrs. Malaprop, and you didn't know any better, would you seriously suggest the author (Sheridan) was writing to his best ability?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

'I believe if chance prevails I will burn St. James's to the ground.'

Ten pages further on:

'I am still thinking of burning St. James's to the ground.'

If the author really was as incompetent as you suggest, Sam, he/she upped their game to get St. James's correct, not once but twice.

Or did he/she slip up here and give us a glimpse of their true capability? Most people today would struggle with this one without the aid of 'Eats, Shoots & Leaves' by Lynne Truss.

You have to weigh the bad with the good before reaching any hard and fast conclusions.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

I would have expected a forger to have made sure the grammar in the diary was perfect so could this mean the diary is genuine?

[caz]

Hi Pinky,

But why would a forger try to make Sir Jim's grammar and spelling perfect, when the real James Maybrick, or the real ripper for that matter (along with Macnaghten, John Evelyn, Ian Brady, you, me, Uncle Tom Cobley and all), would undoubtedly have made a few mistakes over 63 pages, when supposedly writing down thoughts as they came into his head?

I truly don't get the significance here.

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

G'day Pinkmoon

I would have expected a forger to have made sure the grammar in the diary was perfect so could this mean the diary is genuine?

Why?

I know that when I write informally, for my own use, for my family to read, or even here on casebook my grammar goes out the window. When I'm writing a professional letter, I ensure t improves, when I'm writing a textbook or journal article I strive [not sure I achieve] for perfection.

I honestly don't see an argument based on grammar as either supporting or denying the diary.

Same would apply to spelling, except often on computer generated material what looks like poor spelling is often poor typing, or in my case a faulty key on the keyboard as well.

[pinkmoon]

G'day Pinkmoon



Why?

I know that when I write informally, for my own use, for my family to read, or even here on casebook my grammar goes out the window. When I'm writing a professional letter, I ensure t improves, when I'm writing a textbook or journal article I strive [not sure I achieve] for perfection.

I honestly don't see an argument based on grammar as either supporting or denying the diary.

Same would apply to spelling, except often on computer generated material what looks like poor spelling is often poor typing, or in my case a faulty key on the keyboard as well.

A forger would be more aware of using bad grammar the grammar in the diary always surprised me along with some other things.

[GUT]

G'day Pinkmoon

A forger would be more aware of using bad grammar the grammar in the diary always surprised me along with some other things.

Many things in the diary surprised me, few in a good way I hate to have to say. When I first heard of it I was very excited but found it a disappointment when I got to read it.

[Sunbury]

G'day Pinkmoon



Many things in the diary surprised me, few in a good way I hate to have to say. When I first heard of it I was very excited but found it a disappointment when I got to read it.

Hi GUT, I totally agree, after reading the diary I found it a great disappointment.

[Stewart P Evans]

Whatever...

Whatever floats your boat.

In my opinion the 'diary' is a c. 1989 - 1990 concoction and really not worth wasting time on.

[pinkmoon]

Whatever floats your boat.

In my opinion the 'diary' is a c. 1989 - 1990 concoction and really not worth wasting time on.

Hi Stewart,I always thought Mr Barrett forged the diary I held that believe for years untill I met him and then realised he could not be a master forger and anybody with any sense would not involve him in any scheme or scam at any level.

[Stewart P Evans]

My Opinion...

My opinion was reached after being involved at the time it appeared, spending much time in Feldman's office back in 1993/4, personally knowing the majority of those involved in its propagation, amassing much documentation on it, including many private letters (most of which information has never been published) &c., &c. So I doubt I shall be persuaded to change that opinion by anyone.

[GUT]

G'Day all

Can I be rude and turn the question around and ask for

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Proves the Diary.

See anyone who has ever studied evidence or logic knows that it is all but impossible to prove a negative, that's why in Court it is he who asserts a fact that has the burden of proving that fact.

[Kaz]

My opinion was reached after being involved at the time it appeared, spending much time in Feldman's office back in 1993/4, personally knowing the majority of those involved in its propagation, amassing much documentation on it, including many private letters (most of which information has never been published) &c., &c. So I doubt I shall be persuaded to change that opinion by anyone.

Who exactly is trying to persuade you otherwise? You're entitled to your opinion.

But PLEASE share the piece of information (this unpublished stuff maybe), that proves Incontrovertibly, Unequivocally, Undeniably that the diary is fake. Maybe then us 'pro-diarist' will go away and stop ruining your day