google ngrams

[erobitha]

Really inetresting article by leading tech magazine 'Wired' a few years back, highlighting why using Google ngrams with regards to studying laguage is problematic. Enjoy.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/pitfal...-google-ngram/

[caz]

Some expressions in the diary have been discussed quite a bit

I was just wondering if there were other questionable phrases.

Looking through Google n-grams means searching through 189 billion (189.000 million) words printed in english between 1500-2000 and seeing which decades various phrases pop up.

Obviously, one-off doesn't take off until after well into the 20th century.

"spreads mayhem" - first use 1979. "spreading mayhem" a bit earlier, 1946.

But what about the phrase "to down a [person]" - that seems to be hard to find in a 19th century publication?

So is any variation of outfoxed - outfox, outfoxes, outfoxing. Earliest example in google books seems to be 1911 but it only really catches on after the 1940s. One online etymology offers 1872 as first known use of outfox?

My thrills - a very unusual phrase in google books, it seems, most 19th century results are concerned with "my thrills" in the musical sense.

Mole bonnett - no results!

A couple of minor observations, Kattrup:

In the diary, one off does not have a hyphen.

In the diary, mole bonnett is an obvious misspelling of mole bonnet. [Still no results, I'm sure, but just saying.]

I have no personal axe to grind here, because your examples don't point exclusively to a Barrett brain behind the diary, nor exclusively to a late 20th century author.

But if the purpose here is to try and demonstrate that a word or expression could not have been used by anyone writing before, say, the middle of the 20th century, that's a perfectly creditable exercise, as long as you quote your 'problem areas' with 100% accuracy from the diary facsimile itself, and don't copy from a potentially faulty internet transcription.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

but “to shoot down someone” is a different expression from “to down someone”?

Because “down” is used as a verb.

It’s very possible it existed, it just seems to have come into use in the 20th century.

The 'Sir Jim' character in the diary imagines he is hunting the equivalent of game animals - expendable creatures who might only be good for the cooking pot. Surely the expression 'to down a deer [hart, hare or pheasant]' must have been around for centuries, so why couldn't 'to down a whore' merely be a variation on that common theme? A creature feature if you will.

Assuming our hoaxer was aware of the real JM's penchant for nicknames such as Bunny and Piggy for the women he bedded, it's a neat twist along the same beastly lines, isn't it?

The mole bonnet's extra.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

A couple of minor observations, Kattrup:

In the diary, one off does not have a hyphen.

In the diary, mole bonnett is an obvious misspelling of mole bonnet. [Still no results, I'm sure, but just saying.]

I have no personal axe to grind here, because your examples don't point exclusively to a Barrett brain behind the diary, nor exclusively to a late 20th century author.

But if the purpose here is to try and demonstrate that a word or expression could not have been used by anyone writing before, say, the middle of the 20th century, that's a perfectly creditable exercise, as long as you quote your 'problem areas' with 100% accuracy from the diary facsimile itself, and don't copy from a potentially faulty internet transcription.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Why is ‘mole bonnet’ such an issue? It appears in press reports.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

The 'Sir Jim' character in the diary imagines he is hunting the equivalent of game animals - expendable creatures who might only be good for the cooking pot. Surely the expression 'to down a deer [hart, hare or pheasant]' must have been around for centuries, so why couldn't 'to down a whore' merely be a variation on that common theme? A creature feature if you will.

Assuming our hoaxer was aware of the real JM's penchant for nicknames such as Bunny and Piggy for the women he bedded, it's a neat twist along the same beastly lines, isn't it?

The mole bonnet's extra.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi again, Caz.

The concept of ‘downing’ a person was commonplace in the 19th century press.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

That’s from 1904. Probably referring to mole fur, but ‘mole’ was also used to describe a colour.

[caz]

Hi al bundy

it’s not infallible in the sense that it has tracked everything ever printed. Very very small numbers of n-grams might also be left out for, it only considers n-grams that occur in at least 40 books. So the fact that examples of one-off exist even in the 19th century is not a guarantee that they will show up in the n-gram viewer.

It only (!) shows the frequency of use across time.

So, knowing that, quite remarkable that James Maybrick, in the span of a short document, happened to use at least three phrases that seem to have come into use only in the 20th century.

Again, you are looking for 'one-off', when the diary author writes 'one off'.

If the humble hyphen makes no difference at all, why is one ever needed or used?

My daughter, at the age of four, would have demanded to know. At her playschool the tiny tots were asked at the end of one session if they could name anything beginning with the letter h. The mums and dads were assembled, waiting to pick up our offspring, and I was hoping that Little Caz would be first, and say "hat" or "horse" or "house". I was wrong. She was the first to put up her hand, and came out with "hyphen", much to my surprise as anyone's. The playschool leader then quipped: "And C.... is doing her O levels next week."

She is 33 next month and is still just as obsessed with such small matters.

Love,

Mama Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Why is ‘mole bonnet’ such an issue? It appears in press reports.

Gary

Excellent as always, Gary. Kattrup should have come to you first!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi again, Caz.

The concept of ‘downing’ a person was commonplace in the 19th century press.

Gary

Not remotely surprised, Gary.

Even Mike Barrett must have guessed as much, if he was truly the brains behind the diary.

And where did he get his own mole bonnet from, I wonder?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

That’s from 1904. Probably referring to mole fur, but ‘mole’ was also used to describe a colour.

Seriously people!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

The scrapbook author uses as obscure an expression as I suspect it's possible to get - who amongst us, pre-scrapbook, had ever heard of such a thing as a 'mole bonnet'???????

No-one!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yet, here we are - the eponymous item, gloriously esoteric, totally implausible in a 1990-1992 hoax, and yet still we will have folk coming on here saying "Mole bonnet - common phrase 'round our place".

Well it's never even been an uncommon phrase 'round anywhere I've ever been, and I would put it to you all that that is that on the scrapbook front. The hoax theory is dead in the water unless you are going to stretch your belief system so wide as to incorporate the reasonably-unknowable.

Pray tell:

• How did the hoaxer get Florrie's initials into Mary Kelly'd death scene?
• How did the hoaxer get so good a Maybrick signature into the weatch?
• And now, how on earth did the hoaxer ever think to include the concept of a 'mole bonnet'?????????

The end of times. The end of days. The end of the debate ...

Thank you, MrBarnett.

Ike

[MrBarnett]

Seriously people!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

The scrapbook author uses as obscure an expression as I suspect it's possible to get - who amongst us, pre-scrapbook, had ever heard of such a thing as a 'mole bonnet'???????

No-one!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yet, here we are - the eponymous item, gloriously esoteric, totally implausible in a 1990-1992 hoax, and yet still we will have folk coming on here saying "Mole bonnet - common phrase 'round our place".

Well it's never even been an uncommon phrase 'round anywhere I've ever been, and I would put it to you all that that is that on the scrapbook front. The hoax theory is dead in the water unless you are going to stretch your belief system so wide as to incorporate the reasonably-unknowable.

Pray tell:

• How did the hoaxer get Florrie's initials into Mary Kelly'd death scene?
• How did the hoaxer get so good a Maybrick signature into the weatch?
• And now, how on earth did the hoaxer ever think to include the concept of a 'mole bonnet'?????????

The end of times. The end of days. The end of the debate ...

Thank you, MrBarnett.

Ike

Ike,

I wouldn’t say ‘mole bonnet’ in that exact form was common. It was quite unusual. But if you add in references to fashion items made of mole fur or being mole-coloured, the suggestion that the phrase ‘mole bonnet’ is somehow wrong for the late 19th century is incorrect.

Gary

[Iconoclast]

Ike,

I wouldn’t say ‘mole bonnet’ in that exact form was common. It was quite unusual. But if you add in references to fashion items made of mole fur or being mole-coloured, the suggestion that the phrase ‘mole bonnet’ is somehow wrong for the late 19th century is incorrect.

Gary

Hi Gary,

I had previously not entertained the possibility that it was even an uncommon term in the 19th or 20th centuries - I had not found any reference to one. That - to me - makes the example you give all the sweeter, for its utter implausibility, and for how little a modern-day hoaxer could possibly have thought to add it to the scrapbook.

Much appreciated!

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

[*]How did the hoaxer get Florrie's initials into Mary Kelly'd death scene?

Because Simon Wood may have given the hoaxer the idea that initials were there?

[Iconoclast]

Because Simon Wood may have given the hoaxer the idea that initials were there?

Well old Woodsy didn't answer my question when I asked him recently (whether or not what he saw were the 'F' and the 'M' that we are now familiar with).

And whether or not Woodsy saw 'F' and 'M', what were the chances of our hoaxer finding initials he or she could conveniently weave into the tale?

But you only answered one of my three questions (so common in replies on this Casebook - answer the one you think you can and conveniently ignore the ones you struggle with).

Nope - you can't just "Oh that's an easy one" these questions away.

They each individually point towards authenticity. And together? Wow!

Mystery solved!

Ike

[Simon Wood]

As old Woodsy is slowly climbing the stairway to paradise, he doesn't remember Ike asking him about whether or not he saw the 'F' and the 'M' in the Kelly photograph which, I should point out, is not a scene-of-crime photo. It is a reconstruction of said crime scene.

Back to the matter in hand. Attached is part of a letter I sent to the late Nick Warren of Ripperana in 1995. It's the best answer I can give you. Twenty-five years ago I didn't know any better and believed the Kelly photograph was the real deal.

Anyway, here's the letter—



And next time, Ike, not so much of the 'Old.'

Stay well,

Woodsy