Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

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

  • Originally posted by John G View Post
    Not only that but the expression isn't used again for decades, and only then in a strict techinical sense: it doesn't seem to have entered common usage.

    In 27 years, despite extensive research, no researcher has been able to find any common usage of the expression in the pre Second World War period. And as I've pointed out, hoping that something will turn up id a Mr Micawber approach to the subject.
    I refer you to my post #194.
    Iconoclast
    Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy, Genius

    Comment


    • The Oxford English Dictionary, Safire notes, takes this back to a 1934 quotation from the Proceedings of the Institute of British Foundrymen: "A splendid one-off pattern can be swept up in a very little time."

      Almost fifty years after the fake diary. The expression is not found anywhere else, period.
      Regards Darryl

      Comment


      • One off,in that sequence,was a common Victorian expression.Maybe not in the contex it was used in the 'Diary',but could it have been suggestive to whoever wrote the diary?My usage does have a meaning.It refers to a particulat item.One off the top for example.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
          The Oxford English Dictionary, Safire notes, takes this back to a 1934 quotation from the Proceedings of the Institute of British Foundrymen: "A splendid one-off pattern can be swept up in a very little time."

          Almost fifty years after the fake diary. The expression is not found anywhere else, period.
          Regards Darryl
          I refer you to my post #194.
          Iconoclast
          Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy, Genius

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

            The evidence that you knew what Caz meant was not obvious to anyone, unfortunately.

            Those of us who are quite clever understand that what requires evidence is any assertion. The onus does not simply lie on the side that breaks the status quo (for example, "the scrapbook is authentic") but on the side of whoever makes an assertion. Any assertion. That is how argument has proceeded for many a long year now.

            If I assert "There is no God", I have to offer up my reasons for stating so to justify my statement. I don't simply get to negate what to me may be untrue.
            No it really is on those who believe the diary is genuine to prove it. Especially considering the **** and bull story as to how the diary emerged.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

              No it really is on those who believe the diary is genuine to prove it. Especially considering the **** and bull story as to how the diary emerged.
              To be absolutely clear here, if you make any assertion at all, the onus falls on you to demonstrate it. There is a difference between making an assertion and giving an opinion. Thus:
              • "The scrapbook is an obvious hoax" is an assertion which requires evidence to back it up, whereas
              • "The case for the scrapbook being authentic has not yet been supported by the evidence" is an opinion which carries no obligation to defend.
              If you post an opinion, no problem. If you simply make bald assertions, please don't be surprised if you are asked to justify them.

              Your other alternative is to be found at the end of your previous reply on this point.
              Iconoclast
              Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy, Genius

              Comment


              • Which reminds me, I'll be having a one beer soon.
                Oooh, you are a one, Mister Flynn!

                Graham
                We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                Comment


                • I think that the one off instance debate can only be settled to the satisfaction of the majority with the an injection of cash. David Orsam has provided us with, in my opinion, the strongest point against the diary being genuine. We would all have to agree that an anachronistic phrase would kill it stone dead. We can all give our opinions on the topic but the fact is that, as far as I’m aware, none of us are acknowledged experts in the evolution and usage of language. If I was Robert Smith and I was looking to prove that the diary was genuine my first move would have been to try and knock over the strongest argument against it by commissioning such an expert (or two) To be honest he did himself no favours with his attempt to disprove the point in his previous book. In short, only an expert in the field (or two) could provide us with a conclusive answer in my opinion.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by harry View Post
                    One off,in that sequence,was a common Victorian expression.
                    I wouldn't call it common, but it was used to refer to physical objects, typically in a manufacturing context (e.g. a one-off mould for bricks), and this remained the case until well into the 20th Century. It is only in the 20th Century that we start to see it being used to refer to abstract concepts, like "events" and "instances" (which is how it's used in the Diary). As the 20th Century progressed, more and more people would have encountered and adopted the abstract usage, to the extent that by now one hears it used in that manner almost every day. This would not have been the case in the early 20th Century, and almost certainly not in the 19th.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                      And we have copies of every written document and letter from 1888 onwards, do we? And each has been carefully reviewed?
                      Not that my opinion matters a toss, but I'm with you on this, Ike. It is simply impossible for anyone to state that the expression does not occur anywhere else other than 1934 engineering journals, etc., etc. This still doesn't imply that I think Maybrick wrote the Diary or was Jack the Ripper....

                      And for the dubious benefit of those in this non-technical and somewhat clueless age who don't know what one-off means, in the days when engineering drawings were produced by hand, and when they contained virtually all the information a manufacturer needed to produce items from said drawings, the term one-off simply means that just one single item was to be produced using that particular drawing. Or, if there were various component parts on the same drawing, and if for example two of a particular part were required to manufacture the finished complete article, then the drawing would have something like "Part No 2345 - two off". Simples, eh?

                      Graham
                      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                      Comment


                      • Another small point, if I may. It's reckoned by them wot know that Shakespeare introduced possibly hundreds of 'new' words into written English. This does not necessarily mean that he invented these 'new' words; merely that he was the first known writer to put them on paper. Yes, it's likely that he did 'invent' some of these new words. But if he did not, then he was merely writing down, for the first known time in history, words that must have been in current usage before and during his working life. Here are a few:

                        Bedroom Bump Dauntless Employer Go-Between Lacklustre and loads and loads more. Check the Internet! All I'm saying is that words have to be in everyday, spoken usage for some length of time before they are first committed to paper.

                        Graham

                        We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                        Comment


                        • You are innocent until you are proven guilty. 1934 is where the OED who are well knowledged on the English language [like it or not], is found to be the first term for this coinage in its sense. So on that context Maybrick is innocent until some over evidence shows otherwise. So go ahead and show the other evidence and find an example of one-off being used in that context in Victorian times.
                          Regards Darryl

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Graham View Post

                            if there were various component parts on the same drawing, and if for example two of a particular part were required to manufacture the finished complete article, then the drawing would have something like "Part No 2345 - two off".
                            I vividly remember being puzzled when, in the late 1990s, my boss used "two off", "three off", "four off" (etc) when we were putting together a list of computer equipment to be ordered from our store-room. I thought he was spelling "two of" (etc) wrongly, but then he read out the list, confirming that he definitely meant "off" - albeit it still didn't make sense to me. Up until that point, I'd only ever heard (and used) "one-off" to refer to unique people or events, and was totally unaware that it was possible to have more than "one".
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

                              I wouldn't call it common, but it was used to refer to physical objects, typically in a manufacturing context (e.g. a one-off mould for bricks), and this remained the case until well into the 20th Century. It is only in the 20th Century that we start to see it being used to refer to abstract concepts, like "events" and "instances" (which is how it's used in the Diary). As the 20th Century progressed, more and more people would have encountered and adopted the abstract usage, to the extent that by now one hears it used in that manner almost every day. This would not have been the case in the early 20th Century, and almost certainly not in the 19th.
                              I think we are looking for something a little bit more categorical than this, though. We need a definitive view from an expert (although their pronouncements are so frequently flawed) that it was impossible for James Maybrick to have written those three letters ("one off instance") in that order in the late 1880s. It would have helped your case had he used the hyphenation which the modern "one-off" requires, but he didn't. To prove this point, every written document and letter would need to be reviewed way back to Victorian times, and obviously we do not have 95%+ (a made-up statistic, obviously) of them so we would struggle to ever be categorical on this point.
                              Iconoclast
                              Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy, Genius

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Graham View Post

                                Not that my opinion matters a toss, but I'm with you on this, Ike. It is simply impossible for anyone to state that the expression does not occur anywhere else other than 1934 engineering journals, etc., etc. This still doesn't imply that I think Maybrick wrote the Diary or was Jack the Ripper....

                                Graham
                                Well I agree with you on both your points, Graham. To be clear, agreeing with this point does not mean that
                                I
                                believe that it proves that James Maybrick was Jack either. I think we should be wary of making categorical statements when we do not have the evidence any more to properly check our facts. Undermining the "one off instance" issue is not the same thing as agreeing that JM was JtR so if more people agree with this they should kindly speak up.

                                Ike
                                Iconoclast
                                Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy, Genius

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X