Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

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

  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    Ironically Ike, your post is currently showing as being posted "today".
    However, when that is no longer the most relevant term, I'm sure Casebook will date it accordingly.
    Good point, Abe!

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Ironically Ike, your post is currently showing as being posted "today".
    However, when that is no longer the most relevant term, I'm sure Casebook will date it accordingly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Yabs View Post
    Hi Icke.

    I totally agree my friend, it’s just one of the many things that I feel seem a little odd.
    Along with the diary’s constant use of the words Today, tomorrow, Yesterday, instead of naming a day or a date, the latter being the more natural thing to do.


    So yes, far from proof and I never for one moment thought of it as such.
    It’s just one of the many things that lead me to view the scrapbook with suspicion.

    All the best
    Personally, I can't imagine writing about yesterday, today, or tomorrow without using those rather convenient terms. When writing to myself (as Maybrick was to himself) why would I need to offer any greater precision than that? I use those words all the time in my own very occasional diary or in emails, etc.. On the other hand, when I'm referring to a date outside of that very tight window, I will happily use a date format to aid clarity for the reader who is most likely (in the case of my diary) to be myself. I cannot eek any drama or suspicion out of that rather natural and thoroughly mundane aspect of human communication.

    Could any of our readers offer an insight into the thorny problem of referring to yesterday, today, or tomorrow without using those specific terms? Clearly James Maybrick (or our erstwhile hoaxer) failed miserably and had to resort to using the most perfect words possible for each occasion (however many hours forward or backward he was reflecting upon). I'm struggling, Yabs. I need help here to understand how "I went to the pub and got totally smashed yesterday" (my diary, not James', obviously) would reveal to the reader that I didn't, but how "I went to the pub on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 and got totally smashed. By the way, that's the day that passed before the day I'm currently in." would support the notion that I had.

    I have often thought that being a Newcastle United fan made me a perfect foil for Maybrick's sentiments, incidentally. No, I'm not suggesting that we're all a bunch of secretive, murdering animals, but simply that sometimes I really do feel like burning St. James' to the ground. Ha ha.

    Ike (no 'c')
    Last edited by Iconoclast; 01-30-2020, 08:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    Hi Icke.

    I totally agree my friend, it’s just one of the many things that I feel seem a little odd.
    Along with the diary’s constant use of the words Today, tomorrow, Yesterday, instead of naming a day or a date, the latter being the more natural thing to do.


    So yes, far from proof and I never for one moment thought of it as such.
    It’s just one of the many things that lead me to view the scrapbook with suspicion.

    All the best

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Yabs View Post
    I’ve always felt uncomfortable that Maybrick writes his thinking process during the composition of his poems and the poems at the same time.
    It comes across as an affectation for dramatic effect, not someone wanting to impress with his prose.
    You wouldn’t want a valentines card from Maybrick.


    Roses are red

    Bellflowers are blue

    Violets are blue.


    Think dam it!


    Violets are blue

    My last name ends with M

    curses!!


    My last name starts with M


    I shall find a word that rhymes with blue damn you!

    Do you love me too?

    Love James

    X

    I think your incredulity is not quite enough to swing the argument against Maybrick, I'm afraid, Yabs. It's not exactly what we sometimes like to call 'evidence', in all honesty.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    I’ve always felt uncomfortable that Maybrick writes his thinking process during the composition of his poems and the poems at the same time.
    It comes across as an affectation for dramatic effect, not someone wanting to impress with his prose.
    You wouldn’t want a valentines card from Maybrick.


    Roses are red

    Bellflowers are blue

    Violets are blue.


    Think dam it!


    Violets are blue

    My last name ends with M

    curses!!


    My last name starts with M


    I shall find a word that rhymes with blue damn you!

    Do you love me too?

    Love James

    X


    Leave a comment:


  • Ven
    replied
    two examples, 3 spelling mistakes... all leads to lexicon conversion...and if a 1600AD example...many, many yaers to convert! (let's see how long it takes for "yaers" to take of (off)

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Graham View Post
    Sad to say, chaps and chapesses, but it seems to me that the phrase one off in Erobitha's examples (maybe late 16th century, at a guess) more likely mean one of. Spelling in those days was attrochusse. First example, for example, we would read as: one of (as in 'made of') needle-work, and the other of lawn (a fabric made of cotton, I believe). The It' bit means 'item'. Don't think his Lordship will be gnashing his teeth and tearing out his hair just yet, but nice try. We'll get 'im yet.....

    Graham
    Lesson to thy self. Research a little more before posting. Thanks for taking the time to look in to it. I have a feeling something will come up I invest some real time and energy. Appreciate the patience!

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham
    replied
    Sad to say, chaps and chapesses, but it seems to me that the phrase one off in Erobitha's examples (maybe late 16th century, at a guess) more likely mean one of. Spelling in those days was attrochusse. First example, for example, we would read as: one of (as in 'made of') needle-work, and the other of lawn (a fabric made of cotton, I believe). The It' bit means 'item'. Don't think his Lordship will be gnashing his teeth and tearing out his hair just yet, but nice try. We'll get 'im yet.....

    Graham

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    That doesn’t sound ominous in the slightest....
    Not if you consult your own comment regarding dialects …

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    I think erobitha has a lot to answer for ...
    That doesn’t sound ominous in the slightest....

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Hi Erobitha,

    Do you have any examples in English, by any chance?

    PS These do appear to be very interesting examples, though!

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Ha ha - I really didn’t do much more than enter a word search in to Google Books just assumes the results would be English without taking too much notice of the other words. It might be examples of local dialects but there could be straw clutching by me here. If I find any more clear cut examples I’ll be sure to share

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Ven View Post
    You have a Ms Iconclast going to Uni.. is she a girlfriend or a daughter (and what dos she think of this whole thing?)... please explain?
    She be a child, young Ven sir. Oo arr.

    I think erobitha has a lot to answer for ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    Another...
    Hi Erobitha,

    Do you have any examples in English, by any chance?

    PS These do appear to be very interesting examples, though!

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	6C96E593-C96F-48EE-A30D-3EB26B534CE4.jpeg
Views:	366
Size:	145.7 KB
ID:	729570Another...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X