The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Graham]

Okay. Let say I respond to this post with the word, "Driggle". You respond by saying you haven't a clue what that word means, and even if there is some obscure reference from millennia ago why would I use a word that you couldn't reasonably expect to understand the meaning of. I respond by saying, I've no idea whether this word as ever been used before, and I don't care whether you understand it or not, but if you suggest it has never existed, and I'm imbecilic in using an archaic and/ or non-existent word, then do "you have copies of every written document and letter from 1888 onwards?"

Driggle

{v. intr.} to laugh unintentionally at the same time as taking a sip of ones drink, so as to create a bubble pool in said drink. The word is an amalgamation of the words Drink and Giggle. This is often done at parties where amusing stories will occur alongside communal alcohol consumption, although the act of driggling is not solely exclusive to alcoholic beverages.

I need say no more.

Graham

[Graham]

Sam, without knowing precisely when the phrase 'one off' was first coined - and I think you'll understand why I claim it was a long time before 1888 - we can't really take a view as to when it entered everyday usage. But I do believe it was well before 1888, even though it may not have been recorded until some time after then. I do wonder if Orsam ever thought to consult old technical and mechanical drawings before he made his pronouncement....I bet he didn't. Because that, I believe, is where the very earliest written examples of 'one off' will be found.

Now here's a thought: what about 'tin matchbox empty'??? Any ideas?

Graham

[John G]

I have a slight suspicion that some people on this thread struggle with basic logic. So it's time for a little game. If such a person decides to answer my posts i'll simply respond with a phrase or word that I guarantee no one on here as ever heard of. And if they question why I'm using such an archaic/ non existent word or phrase, I'll respond by saying: " That's your problem, not mine. I simply don't care whether you understand it or not. And by the way, can you provide absolute, incontrovertible proof that word or phrase has never been used before?" Gruddgel!

Hilarious. Simply hilarious.

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe, Sam, your background is slightly more middle-clarse, shall we say; if, of course, there ever was a middle-class in Wales, forgive me for saying so but I can't resist it!

I don't mind at all, Graham. However, both my parents grew up in council houses to working class parents and my father's family, in particular, was pitifully poor. My father worked on farms and a slaughterman before he joined the police force, from which he retired after thirty-odd years as a constable. My mother did various clerical jobs to help my sister and me through school and university.

I well remember my old man, who was an electrician, coming home from work during the 1950's and regaling my mother (and anyone else within ear-shot) of what he had done at work that day.

I daresay he did, but I can't see why he should have used jargon. In the case of "one-off", we're not just talking about the passing on of jargon, but the phrase (a) reaching sufficient saturation in common parlance; and (b) its mutating in meaning such that it could casually be used to refer to non-physical entity.

[John G]

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

Okay. Let say I respond to this post with the word, "Driggle". You respond by saying you haven't a clue what that word means, and even if there is some obscure reference from millennia ago why would I use a word that you couldn't reasonably expect to understand the meaning of. I respond by saying, I've no idea whether this word as ever been used before, and I don't care whether you understand it or not, but if you suggest it has never existed, and I'm imbecilic in using an archaic and/ or non-existent word, then do "you have copies of every written document and letter from 1888 onwards?"

[John G]

Who knows how many times "one-off instance", "one-off standpoint", "one-off event" et cetera were used in unpublished documents and letters between 1888 and 1904.

Probably quite a lot I'd circumspectly suggest ...

Great. So list twenty examples. Or, if that's too difficult, one example.

[Graham]

Hello Graham

They'd still be a small minority of the population, and I see no reason why workplace jargon should be used at home, or even how much of it could be used. ("Wife, I am back from the factory. Could you make me a couple of your nice toasted cheese sandwiches please? Actually, I'm very hungry, so better make it four-off". Can't quite see that kind of thing happening somehow.)

Well, oddly enough, Sam, I can. I have the very distinct impression that the majority of posters to this thread are what one might call post-industrial society. I am 73, and I well remember my old man, who was an electrician, coming home from work during the 1950's and regaling my mother (and anyone else within ear-shot) of what he had done at work that day. His job was his life, and I am very certain he wasn't the only bloke who thought as such. (Not a 'one-off', you might say). When I was old enough to go down the pub with the old man, say around 1964, he had risen a bit in his work, but he and his mates had but two topics of conversation: Aston Villa FC, and their work. Maybe, Sam, your background is slightly more middle-clarse, shall we say; if, of course, there ever was a middle-class in Wales, forgive me for saying so but I can't resist it!

Graham

[Iconoclast]

"One-off job" is essentially the same as "one-off" full stop. It relates to a manufacturing process and whether it was published in 1905 or 1922 (why would it be published in 1922 - was this where John Cleese got the idea for the 1967 'At Last, The 1948 Show', I wonder?) it does not help us to explain how the entirely different "one off instance" could have been used in 1888.

Fortunately, the 1904 "One-off standpoint" does that perfectly so we can all move on from that 'irrefutable' proof of a hoax to the next imagined one ...

[Iconoclast]

You've missed the point. We can't take on blind faith that things might exist because there is no categorical proof they don't, be it the term "one off instance" in the 19th century or unicorns full stop.

No I didn't. With the concept of a "one-off event" we have a reference point - those terms entered the English language at some point and that is not in debate. Unicorns have no reference point. If the point that you were trying to make was the one you state above, you should have found an analogous example rather than a totally irrelevant one.

[Sam Flynn]

In the notes section at the back of Robert's 2017 book, he does cite an example from 1905 of a 'one-off job', taken from Volume 50 of a publication called Foundry.

Hello Caz

The source of Robert Smith's information was the Wiktionary website, which indeed quotes Foundry Vol 50 p158, 1905:

"If such a casting was wanted in a hurry - a one-off job - there would be no question of molding [sic] it on a machine"

Unfortunately, as David Orsam pointed out, had Robert Smith checked on Google Books, he'd have found that Vol 50 of Foundry was actually published in March 1922. Orsam reproduces some images from the magazine, including the relevant part of p158 that does indeed mention the "one-off job", on his website.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, just read this from a few posts back. You have to bear in mind that back in the 19th and early 20th century there was a far higher proportion of the workforce at all levels engaged in engineering and manufacture than there is today. Therefore is it not to be expected that 'engineering expressions' would be in more common household usage than is the case today?

Hello Graham

They'd still be a small minority of the population, and I see no reason why workplace jargon should be used at home, or even how much of it could be used. ("Wife, I am back from the factory. Could you make me a couple of your nice toasted cheese sandwiches please? Actually, I'm very hungry, so better make it four-off". Can't quite see that kind of thing happening somehow.)

[Harry D]

Honestly Harry, I would just move on from this gaff of yours. You used as an analogy something which has never been shown to exist (ever) and compared it with something which clearly has been shown to exist ("one-off" as an event in common parlance). What you needed was an analogy where something is now known to exist but wasn't always known to exist - but instead you concocted an illogical argument about unicorns which (I'm sure you know) are simply made up animals.

You've missed the point. We can't take on blind faith that things might exist because there is no categorical proof they don't, be it the term "one off instance" in the 19th century or unicorns full stop.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

In the notes section at the back of Robert's 2017 book, he does cite an example from 1905 of a 'one-off job', taken from Volume 50 of a publication called Foundry.

For what it's worth.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

I just found it difficult to see how he could have used the prison explanation without seeing how it was obviously a completely different usage. It’s difficult to put that one down to an error.

[Graham]

It's talking about engineering/manufacture (casting or moulding) so, once again, we have a specialist using "one-off" in a technical context. We'll have to wait a long time before lay-people start writing about "one-offs" to describe abstract things like instances of human behaviour. Whilst the "rough indicator" caveat still applies to Google Books, the fact remains that I didn't find examples of any of these phrases in print before the 1970s:

Sam, just read this from a few posts back. You have to bear in mind that back in the 19th and early 20th century there was a far higher proportion of the workforce at all levels engaged in engineering and manufacture than there is today. Therefore is it not to be expected that 'engineering expressions' would be in more common household usage than is the case today?

Graham

[caz]

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.

Hi HS,

In the notes section at the back of Robert's 2017 book, he does cite an example from 1905 of a 'one-off job', taken from Volume 50 of a publication called Foundry.

For what it's worth.

Love,

Caz
X