The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Harry D]

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.

No, it's not. There are no documents that support the diarist's usage of "one-off instance" at that time. Until someone can provide evidence to the contrary it's a perfectly valid statement of fact.

[Graham]

No, it's not. There are no documents that support the diarist's usage of "one-off instance" at that time. Until someone can provide evidence to the contrary it's a perfectly valid statement of fac

t.

So every printed and hand-written document that ever existed before or at the critical time has been located and visually checked, then? I think not. Rather, you mean that no known document supports your contention.

Graham

[Graham]

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".

Well said, Sam. And thanks. An alternative to 'one'-or 'two'-off, etc., was and probably still is 'one reqd' and so on, 'reqd' being obviously a contraction of 'required'.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Another small point, if I may. It's reckoned by them wot know that Shakespeare introduced possibly hundreds of 'new' words into written English... 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.

True enough, however the number of printed documents produced at the time of Shakespeare, and before him, pales into insignificance compared to what was churned out in subsequent centuries, which sky-rocketed from the 18th Century onwards. Greater urbanisation, industrialisation and easier travel brought more people into proximity with one another, allowing for ideas, words and phrases to spread. Literacy was also improving, and the rise of numerous affordable newspapers in the 19th Century meant that a given word or phrase was significantly more likely to reach a wide audience than ever before, an effect which grew exponentially in the 20th Century with the advent of mass electronic communication media of all kinds.

These factors not only have a bearing on how quickly new words/phrases/meanings "caught on", but also how quickly they got into print, and the sheer range of printed sources that might carry them. In Shakespeare's day, it might have taken a century or more for a word to be written down, but by the time we reach the 20th Century that lead-time dwindled to perhaps a handful of decades at most. With the more recent "viral" success of social media, the lead-time has shrunk further still.

[Graham]

For the Diary to be genuine, and personally penned by J Maybrick, then for it to eventually end up in the shaky hands of Mr Michael Barrett it seems plain to me that it must have come out of Battlecrease at some point in its life. If so, by what possible means? There is what I can now only think of as a 'Diary Legend' that it was found under the floorboards of Maybrick's dressing-room when the house was being re-wired. Stories that it was chucked out of a window, ending up on the skip, and so forth. Feldman relates that something was found by, presumably, the electricians, and was taken by them to Liverpool University in the hope that they could shed light upon it - whatever 'it' was. Feldman says he went to the University to find out more, but was given the cold shoulder there. And, quite without his characteristic bulldog-like tenacity, he appears not to have followed up this lead. What did he find out, if anything? Any ideas?

There is also the 'Diary Legend' that it did somehow come out of Battlecrease, but much earlier, and found its way into the possession of Billy Graham via a tenuous and probably non-existent family connection with the Maybricks, who took no notice of it, and eventually handed it over to Ann Graham, who similarly appears to have been just as uninterested in it, and, according to what she said to Feldman, hid it behind a bedroom cupboard for however many years. Only when she felt that it might 'give Mike something to do' did she produce it and hand it over to him.

Discuss.

Graham

[Iconoclast]

No, it's not. There are no documents that support the diarist's usage of "one-off instance" at that time. Until someone can provide evidence to the contrary it's a perfectly valid statement of fact.

Once again, let me remind you that the scrapbook absolutely does not mention a "one-off" anything. All that you are doing is trying the case using the evidence you have decided is there rather than what is actually there.

If Maybrick had hyphenated these two words, I would be the first to agree that the intended meaning of the phrase is beyond debate. Of course, at that point I would challenge you to reassure us all that every written document and letter since 1888 has been preserved and reviewed to check for common usage of this (or very similar) expressions.

[Harry D]

t.

So every printed and hand-written document that ever existed before or at the critical time has been located and visually checked, then? I think not. Rather, you mean that no known document supports your contention.

Graham

We can only work from the material available to us, and none of it contains the use of "one off instance" before the 20th century.

[Harry D]

Once again, let me remind you that the scrapbook absolutely does not mention a "one-off" anything. All that you are doing is trying the case using the evidence you have decided is there rather than what is actually there.

If Maybrick had hyphenated these two words, I would be the first to agree that the intended meaning of the phrase is beyond debate. Of course, at that point I would challenge you to reassure us all that every written document and letter since 1888 has been preserved and reviewed to check for common usage of this (or very similar) expressions.

Pettifogging. Hyphenated or not, the use of the term referring to something unique was not used outside of the Maybrick Diary before the 20th century. You can believe that this term has been conveniently lost or that Maybrick was the Shakespeare of his time, but when weighed against that improbability, the dubious origin of the diary, and the other errors, it really is hard to see why anyone thinks it's legit.

[John Wheat]

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.

Whatever. I'm just not immature or stupid enough to believe the diary is authentic.

[Iconoclast]

We can only work from the material available to us, and none of it contains the use of "one off instance" before the 20th century.

That's honestly your argument, then? We've lost almost all of the relevant evidence but the answer almost certainly lies amongst the little bit we've got left?

That reminds me of the guy who was found searching for his keys in a posh neighbourhood as it was growing dark. When asked where he lost them, he said some other, rougher place. When asked why he was looking here instead of there, he replied that he felt safer here. [I've heard Buddhist versions where it's the light that's better 'here'].

So we look for the keys where we feel safe - where there is some evidence; but not where we need them to be, where the evidence is more or less all gone ...

[Iconoclast]

Pettifogging. Hyphenated or not, the use of the term referring to something unique was not used outside of the Maybrick Diary before the 20th century. You can believe that this term has been conveniently lost or that Maybrick was the Shakespeare of his time, but when weighed against that improbability, the dubious origin of the diary, and the other errors,it really is hard to see why anyone thinks it's legit.

Well, we certainly don't rely on sweeping generalisations and ignoring what is possible.

Hyphenated or not, the use of the term referring to something unique was not used outside of the Maybrick Diary before the 20th century.

How can you assert this is categorically true if you don't have access to the written documents and letters of that time? Orsam checked in an online database of published works. That was it.

[Iconoclast]

Whatever. I'm just not immature or stupid enough to believe the diary is authentic.

Well I suppose that's an opinion of sorts. Let me quickly summarise it: you believe that everyone who argues that the scrapbook may be genuine must necessarily be either or both of a) immature and b) stupid. I think I've captured your theory succinctly and accurately.

Here's the problem as I see it, I have two university degrees and a postgraduate diploma. I'm almost sixty now and have held down responsible roles for 30 years working with some of the most educated people in the UK. I've got to be honest, I'm not feeling immature or stupid, and (prior to you just doing so) people have never to my recollection described me thus; but according to your opinion I must be. That's got me all confused and bemused. How on earth could I have failed to realise my immaturity and/or my stupidity?

Oh - no - wait ...… here's a thought that's just occurred to me - maybe your opinion is wrong?

[caz]

What has Brexit got to do with the diary? If you think the diary is not a modern hoax your deluding yourself.

Quite a bit actually, John.

Both are divisive and infuriating, with people on either side of the fence accusing those on the other side of deluding themselves. Even those on the fence don't escape.

The difference is that the diary will not affect anyone's health, wealth or happiness in a bad way unless they let it, so it is [or ought to be] of very little importance.

Have a restful weekend.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm paranoid, but I have low self-esteem. I can't see how anyone could be bothered to have it in for me.

Nice one, Gareth.

[Iconoclast]

Well, would you credit it? A wee nudge from a private correspondent sent me off to the dark side - yes, The Jack the Ripper Forums - and there I found a short exchange regarding the problematic nature of "one-off" which was quickly dispelled by the identification of the expression "one-off standpoint" in an engineering text dated 1904.

Hello Gary

"The plan though the simplest from a 'one off standpoint' may be apt to leave an ugly parting mark in the casting." - Model Engineer and Practical Electrician, Vol 10. 1904

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:

Word Counts.jpg

NB: I started the graph purely arbitrarily in 1967 for reasons of space; if I'd started it back in the 19th Century it would have resulted in a very long X axis, and the graph would have been completely empty until the relevant phrases started appearing towards the end of the 20th.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

The actual thread can be found here: https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=28835&page=4

Now there's a small degree of embarrassed 'counter argument' which quickly fizzles out. Why does it fizzle out so quickly? Well, it is primarily because the argument was clearly shot to pieces. You can all read it for yourselves.

So it's mentioned by an engineer therefore it was not commonly available (even though that engineer had made the leap from "one-off" as a process to "one-off" as a position). Well, it's an engineering journal so we shouldn't get too excited there. The fact that an engineer could use that phrase so unselfconsciously in 1904 is all the evidence that we need that the stylised version of the old 'process' had reached common parlance. Unless we are arguing that only engineers could possibly have adapted an engineering phrase like "one-off" as a process to mean "one-off" as a position?

You know what, everyone, I think we all need to revisit The Greatest Thread of All as it is clearly not as moribund as Orsam and Flynn think!