Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Maybrick--a Problem in Logic
Collapse
X
-
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:
-
Originally posted by Yabs View PostHi 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
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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by Yabs View PostI’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
Cheers,
Ike
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by Graham View PostSad 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:
-
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
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by erobitha View Post
That doesn’t sound ominous in the slightest....
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ven View PostYou 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?
I think erobitha has a lot to answer for ...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by erobitha View PostAnother...
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:
Leave a comment: