google ngrams

[caz]

The attraction of alliterative terms with buffoon as the second word is obvious. The Victorians certainly appreciated them. The idea that no Victorian could possibly have coupled bumbling and buffoon is beyond absurd.

Beyond bumbling to boot, Gary?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

"Bumbling buffoon" is a glairing and definitive and unquestioned proof that the diary is a modern hoax.




The Baron

Did you just make up the word 'glairing' Baron?

And I can assure you that this 'proof' of yours is being questioned, so you are unquestionably wrong about that.

You may think it's unquestionable, but that would just be an opinion, which has to be considered alongside your qualifications for having one, as displayed in all your posts.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

The attraction of alliterative terms with buffoon as the second word is obvious. The Victorians certainly appreciated them. The idea that no Victorian could possibly have coupled bumbling and buffoon is beyond absurd.

[caz]

Hello Peeps.
It’s worth mentioning that the phrase
Bumbling Buffoon appears twice in the diary.
So these aren’t two words that Maybrick would have placed together by chance.
He is using it as a common phrase.

Why should we expect everything written in what is meant to be someone's highly personal journal to be a 'common' phrase, in 'wide circulation' or in 'wide usage'?

Someone obsessed with word play would only have to hear a novel adjective like "bumbling" once, whether combined with "buffoon" or not, to want to try it out for themselves. The diary is full of word play, dry quips and try-out lines, indicating an interest in word spotting, if not a talent for its usage in prose and poetry. And this word play has always struck me as rather odd in itself, if it was all part of a joint money-making enterprise by a less than happily married couple, who didn't appear to have a wide circle of friends, or a particular interest in rhyming verse for serial killing Scousers. Why bother with any of this, when a few pages of words and phrases taken from a suitably old dictionary, newspaper or novel would have been so much quicker, easier and safer?

The first time any currently existing phrase was spoken or written down is likely to be very different from the date we have for the earliest surviving example on the public record. Maybe the Barretts knew this and simply trusted to luck that all would be well. Maybe Bongo knew that trying to prove a negative tends to be a fool's errand.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

While Google ngrams cannot be definitive in respect of anything other than the written sources it uses, it is a good guide to what the literate population had on its mind at any point in the Victorian era.

[Harry D]

There seems to be a few turns of phrase that were not in vogue for when the diary was purportedly written. The more of them that mount up, the more damaging it is to the diary's credibility. Of course, the pro-diarists will keep taking refuge in absence of evidence as not evidence of absence. In fact, since they believe the diary is genuine, and the diary contains those phrases, that in itself proves the diary's authenticity. That's the kind of dishonest logic critics are up against and there's no quarrelling with blind faith.

[The Baron]

The point being avoided is that the pairing of the two words bumbling and buffoon, in itself, does not categorically prove the diary is a modern fake.

I believe it almost certainly is a modern fake, but I’ve seen no single verbal anachronism that positively proves that.

And neither have I yet seen anything that proves Charles Lechmere’s innocence.

"Bumbling buffoon" is a glairing and definitive and unquestioned proof that the diary is a modern hoax.




The Baron

[MrBarnett]

Hold on a minute, though. This would obviously be true for swear words like 'bitch' and 'f--k', which newspaper editors and publishing houses would be hesitant to put into print during the Victorian & Edwardian eras.

But swear words are an obvious exception.

But Gary's objection clearly fails when it comes to phrases like 'spreading mayhem' or 'bumbling buffoon' which would pose no such objection to an editor or publisher.

Indeed, if this conversation is going to be resurrected, it might be worthwhile revisiting the phrase "bumbling buffoon," first noticed, I believe, by The Baron.




Its appearance between 1850 and 1930 was measured at .000000000

After 1940 it takes off.

Here is the explanation we received:



(The list went on, but we get the point).

Unfortunately, Gary seems to have spent a great deal of time analyzing the wrong word.

No one suggested that the word 'buffoon' wasn't in wide circulation in the Victorian era. Pairing it with other words was meaningless.

The problematic word was not buffoon; it was 'bumbling,' when used as an adjective to mean inept or bungling. Bumbling buffoon appears in the Diary.

It was pointed out that contemporary editions of the Oxford English Dictionary recognized the word bumbling as 'obsolete' and regional. Thus, it was not in wide usage.

This was ignored and we were instead treated to an analysis of "buffoon."

Yet, if the lexicographer James Murray and others who compiled the OED were wrong, it would be an easy matter to find examples of its usage:

bumbling fool

bumbling idiot

bumbling ass

in a bumbling manner, etc.

Instead, we were treated to no such examples, let alone any evidence that the well-known insult "bumbling buffoon" was in circulation before World War II.

The point being avoided is that—at the time when the diary first emerged—these phrases were undeniably in wide usage.

In the Victorian era? Not so much. And in some cases, not at all.

The point being avoided is that the pairing of the two words bumbling and buffoon, in itself, does not categorically prove the diary is a modern fake.

I believe it almost certainly is a modern fake, but I’ve seen no single verbal anachronism that positively proves that.

And neither have I yet seen anything that proves Charles Lechmere’s innocence.

[Yabs]

Hello Peeps.
It’s worth mentioning that the phrase
Bumbling Buffoon appears twice in the diary.
So these aren’t two words that Maybrick would have placed together by chance.
He is using it as a common phrase.

[rjpalmer]

Am I correct in assuming that you wish to point out that the apparent low frequency of usage of the word in printed matter during the 19th century is not commensurate with its actual use in speech?

Hold on a minute, though. This would obviously be true for swear words like 'bitch' and 'f--k', which newspaper editors and publishing houses would be hesitant to put into print during the Victorian & Edwardian eras.

But swear words are an obvious exception.

But Gary's objection clearly fails when it comes to phrases like 'spreading mayhem' or 'bumbling buffoon' which would pose no such objection to an editor or publisher.

Indeed, if this conversation is going to be resurrected, it might be worthwhile revisiting the phrase "bumbling buffoon," first noticed, I believe, by The Baron.




Its appearance between 1850 and 1930 was measured at .000000000

After 1940 it takes off.

Here is the explanation we received:

‘The Buffoon’ was one of the most popular songs of 1889. ‘A Private Buffoon’ was another. And for those with equine interests, Captain Middleton’s steeplechaser ‘Buffoon’ earned frequent mentions in the sporting press that year. There was even a steamer named Buffoon at the time.

And in the press in 1889, we find the expressions:

‘Boosing buffoon’

‘Stammering buffoon’

‘Brilliant buffoon’

‘Burnt Cork Buffoons’

‘Capering buffoon’

‘Dull buffoon’

‘Licensed buffoon’

‘Political buffoon’

‘Old buffoon’

‘Hired buffoon’

‘Village buffoon’

‘Fanatical buffoon’

‘Favourite buffoon’

‘Cynical buffoon’

‘Human buffoon’

‘Local buffoon’

‘Clever buffoon’

‘Pityable buffoon’

‘Family buffoon’

‘American buffoon’

(The list went on, but we get the point).

Unfortunately, Gary seems to have spent a great deal of time analyzing the wrong word.

No one suggested that the word 'buffoon' wasn't in wide circulation in the Victorian era. Pairing it with other words was meaningless.

The problematic word was not buffoon; it was 'bumbling,' when used as an adjective to mean inept or bungling. Bumbling buffoon appears in the Diary.

It was pointed out that contemporary editions of the Oxford English Dictionary recognized the word bumbling as 'obsolete' and regional. Thus, it was not in wide usage.

This was ignored and we were instead treated to an analysis of "buffoon."

Yet, if the lexicographer James Murray and others who compiled the OED were wrong, it would be an easy matter to find examples of its usage:

bumbling fool

bumbling idiot

bumbling ass

in a bumbling manner, etc.

Instead, we were treated to no such examples, let alone any evidence that the well-known insult "bumbling buffoon" was in circulation before World War II.

The point being avoided is that—at the time when the diary first emerged—these phrases were undeniably in wide usage.

In the Victorian era? Not so much. And in some cases, not at all.

[MrBarnett]

Ok, good. It's been a while but that was actually mentioned earlier in the thread https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...801#post740801



I'm sure it did.

Yes, the thread is rather repetitive.

[caz]

This whole thread is effed up if you ask me.

Love,

The Stupid Bitch
X

[Kattrup]

You are correct in that assumption, which I thought might be demonstrable by running it through the magic Google box of tricks.

Ok, good. It's been a while but that was actually mentioned earlier in the thread https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...801#post740801

As for ‘stupid bitch’ it was in use in the 1880s. It even made it into print.

I'm sure it did.

[MrBarnett]

Like this:
Am I correct in assuming that you wish to point out that the apparent low frequency of usage of the word in printed matter during the 19th century is not commensurate with its actual use in speech?

You are correct in that assumption, which I thought might be demonstrable by running it through the magic Google box of tricks.

As for ‘stupid bitch’ it was in use in the 1880s. It even made it into print.

[Kattrup]

How does the F word fare, Kattrup?

Like this:
Am I correct in assuming that you wish to point out that the apparent low frequency of usage of the word in printed matter during the 19th century is not commensurate with its actual use in speech?