The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Graham]

Which reminds me, I'll be having a one beer soon.

Oooh, you are a one, Mister Flynn!

Graham

[Iconoclast]

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.

[John Wheat]

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.

[Iconoclast]

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.

[harry]

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[Iconoclast]

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]

The issue is this. If the diary is genuine then Maybrick would have invented, and used, an expression that no one would have understood at the time. Why woyld he have done that, as it would have been completely meaningless to the reader?

Which reader was Maybrick writing his scrapbook for exactly?

[Iconoclast]

For the most part, yes. And to find all of these expressions used in one comparatively short document is even more damning.

And we have copies of every written document and letter from 1888 onwards, do we? And each has been carefully reviewed?

[Iconoclast]

In what way was 'one off'used by Victorians?

The issue is not how it was used (that has yet to be shown). The issue is that it is not certain that it could not be used.

[Iconoclast]

Not when "regards" is a known tic of Mike Barrett. Not if "giving someone a call" became an expression that reached vernacular saturation-point after the advent of cheap, ubiquitous telephony. Not when taking "mayhem" to mean "chaos" as it was increasingly used in (the latter half of) the 20th century. Not when "top myself" became more than just prison slang in a similar time-scale.

"Regards" is not a tic! Once again you are being prejudicial. This is a term used commonly. I use it myself. Once again, this may be a northern England dialect issue, I don't know, but unless you know these things for certain, you should not be asserting them as fact.

[Iconoclast]

Specifically, one-off instance - an abstract use of "one-off", whereas heretofore it had been restricted to the manufacturing industry. NB: trading in cotton is not the same as manufacturing bricks or other physical artefacts.


Not when "regards" is a known tic of Mike Barrett. Not if "giving someone a call" became an expression that reached vernacular saturation-point after the advent of cheap, ubiquitous telephony. Not when taking "mayhem" to mean "chaos" as it was increasingly used in (the latter half of) the 20th century. Not when "top myself" became more than just prison slang in a similar time-scale.

I'll politely remind everyone again that this is prejudicial. Please desist from changing what the scrapbook states. It states "one off instance" not the hyphenated "one-off" which we are all familiar with today.

[Iconoclast]

I generally try to stay away from the diary controversy but I feel that I need to get in a quick comment. I can't for the life of me see how the expression "one-off" is some sort of smoking gun. I am not aware of millions of grammar police roaming the world recording conversations they might overhear and recording the first instance of an expression being used. And even if a perusal of books and journals doesn't uncover it, has every book and journal in the world been looked at? At best, the lack of the term showing up in usage can only make the diary suspect as to its authenticity but it is not a smoking gun.

And discussions of "call" and "regards" versus "regarding" really seem to be nit picking bordering on mental masturbation (insert Druitt joke here).

c.d.

I agree entirely c.d. (on all of your points), and I welcome your balanced view (even though - if memory serves - you are a scrapbook-disbeliever).