The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[John Wheat]

I've had a quick look to see if anyone has replied to this and they haven't so I shall. Caz, John, was simply contrasting your firm assertion that the scrapbook is a hoax with her own ironic assertion that Brexit is a miracle. Other than you, we all understood what she was illustrating - namely, that making bald assertions without providing the evidence to back them up is a pointless game we can all play (but to no end). I knew she was being ironic mainly because she was disparaging about the impact Brexit is going to have on the nation in a post only a handful above the one you replied to; but also because her post - without being ironic - would not have served any obvious purpose and she doesn't appear to be a poster who operates without grounds and reason. If I were you, I'd take that as a polite hint.

I knew exactly what Caz was trying to say. The onus is on those that believe the diary was written by Maybrick to back that up with evidence and not on those who believe its a modern forgery. So provide some evidence it's genuine or shut up.

[c.d.]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

I can't for the life of me see how the expression "one-off" is some sort of smoking gun.

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.

And discussions of "call" and "regards" versus "regarding" really seem to be nit picking

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.

[c.d.]

Sorry Sam, but I think you have gone off the deep end. Where is all this stuff you talk of recorded and verified? As in dates and times of first usage? Are you saying that these expressions can never be found outside of 100% verifiable instances? Can someone not take a term or expression and tweak it a little to suit themselves?

c.d.

[harry]

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

[Sam Flynn]

Are you saying that these expressions can never be found outside of 100% verifiable instances?

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

[Iconoclast]

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

That's just silly, Sam. That's not how the expression is used. It would be used in the form of "I'll have a one too". So "It's a one ... 'off' ... instance" is syntactically correct whereas your beer example clearly wasn't syntactically correct. Indeed, we know that because - if you dropped the 'a' - your sentence still would not have been syntactically correct ("I'll be having one beer soon")!

[John G]

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.

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? Not only that, but of all the billions of individuals who could have originated the expression it just happens to have, coincidentally, been Maybrick, written in a book of dubious, that is to say non existent, provenance.

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.

[Iconoclast]

I knew exactly what Caz was trying to say. The onus is on those that believe the diary was written by Maybrick to back that up with evidence and not on those who believe its a modern forgery. So provide some evidence it's genuine or shut up.

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.

[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).

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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?