google ngrams

[Yabs]

A quick 3 minute chat from Michigan Radio with linguist Anne Curzan concerning One Off and other unique terms.
you can play it as an audio file on the page in this link

https://www.michiganpublic.org/arts-culture/2014-06-29/the-difference-between-one-off-and-one-of-a-kind

[Herlock Sholmes]

I thought we were talking about whether James Maybrick could invent the expression “one off instance” etc. That’s what you fine folks started the thread for.

But now it seems it’s about whether James Maybrick, or anyone outside of manufacturing, even knew the term “one off”

Let me try and explain this to you in as simple terms as possible, Lombro.

in 1888, to the extent it can be called "a term", the words "one off" didn't mean what they mean today, or what they meant in the 1980s/90s.

When you think about it, "one off", by itself, doesn't contain any meaning of uniqueness or unrepeatability. If anything, you'd think it would mean taking one thing away from another.

But in 1888 a patternmaker would speak in their own jargon of casting [any number] off. If they were casting only one item, they would refer to casting one off but they wouldn't have said that they were casting a one off because no such thing existed.

Equally, in 1888, an engineer would talk of needing an item [any number] off, so if they needed one item they would say that they needed "one off". But they wouldn't have said that they needed a one off of that item. And, indeed, there could have been thousands or even millions of that particular item in existence of which they only needed one.

So it doesn't matter if you were a manufacturer or a cotton merchant, you didn't speak of anything as a one off.

By the early 20th century, due to the fact that casting one off had become quite common, as had jobs involving casting one off, patternmakers started to speak of "one off jobs" and "one off patterns".

But that language was still just technical jargon, only found in technical journals.

Slowly the concept of a one off job made its way into the general English language and, for example, adverts can be found in newspapers placed by employers during the 1930s looking for men experienced in one off jobs. Whether normal people understood what this meant at this time is difficult to say but probably not (although it doesn't matter). However, in the 1940s the concept started to spread and we find references to "one off products" in magazines for car enthusiasts so it may well be by this time that normal people understood the concept of "one off" as it applied to manufactured products.

We know that in 1946 a writer compared a unique Scotsman to a "one off job" which he expressly said was a term used by engineers.

It is only after this that abstract events and occasions started to be described as one offs so that, for example, people would refer to doing something once and once only a "one off instance". The first known example of this at the moment is from 1958 when Tatler magazine referred to "one off efforts". Then, in 1959, a Portsmouth newspaper spoke of a "one off event". So, finally, the figurative or metaphorical use of the term had entered the English language. No doubt it was used before 1958 but clearly not before 1946.

Everything I've said above is supported not only by recent research but also by the Oxford English Dictionary, books about phrase origins and, indeed, by Dr Kate Flint of Oxford University.

I hope this helps you in your endeavour to discover whether the diary is genuine or a modern fake.

The answer is that it is a modern fake.

[Lombro2]

I thought we were talking about whether James Maybrick could invent the expression “one off instance” etc. That’s what you fine folks started the thread for.

But now it seems it’s about whether James Maybrick, or anyone outside of manufacturing, even knew the term “one off”

[John Wheat]

Just wondering what the job description of a Cotton Merchant who had a diary purported to be written by him suggesting he was Jack the Ripper considering the diary was so clearly written by Anne and Mike Barrett has to do with the case at all?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s no point in trying to explain it again as I can’t make it any simpler.

[Lombro2]

It's a wonder "one off" EVER took off then.


What is the point of it all?

-Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the 19th century, cotton merchants bought and sold cotton, and were part of a global network of economic relationships.
Cotton merchants in the United States

• Purchased land and slaves for Southern planters
• Loaned money to Southern planters
• Participated in the cotton trade, which was central to the US economy

Cotton merchants in Liverpool

• Met on Exchange Flags to buy and sell cotton
• Used the telegraph and telephone to conduct business
• Used the Liverpool and Manchester Railway to transport cotton between Liverpool's port and Manchester's mills

Cotton merchants in Manchester

• Part of the cotton industry, which made Manchester a center of the cotton trade
• Owned factories that produced cotton cloth
• Made money from the cotton trade and from owning enslaved people

Maybrick didn't own any factories and he didn't manufacture anything. He just bought and sold cotton. What point are you now desperately trying to make?

[Lombro2]

In the 19th century, cotton merchants bought and sold cotton, and were part of a global network of economic relationships.
Cotton merchants in the United States

• Purchased land and slaves for Southern planters
• Loaned money to Southern planters
• Participated in the cotton trade, which was central to the US economy

Cotton merchants in Liverpool

• Met on Exchange Flags to buy and sell cotton
• Used the telegraph and telephone to conduct business
• Used the Liverpool and Manchester Railway to transport cotton between Liverpool's port and Manchester's mills

Cotton merchants in Manchester

• Part of the cotton industry, which made Manchester a center of the cotton trade
• Owned factories that produced cotton cloth
• Made money from the cotton trade and from owning enslaved people

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry I don’t know anybody, average or otherwise, from 1888.

I only know people from 1988. My friend’s example was spoken, of course, or a private thought.

By 1988 "one off" was a common expression in the English language. It wasn't in 1888. That's the difference.

Therefore - the diary is a proven forgery.

[Lombro2]

Sorry I don’t know anybody, average or otherwise, from 1888.

I only know people from 1988. My friend’s example was spoken, of course, or a private thought.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Average persons picked it up and Maybrick was not an average person. He was in trade and manufacture. Even Michael Barrett would know that.

I would just give him credit for that and say it fits very well. No bumbling here from your buffoon.

Maybrick, as a commodities broker, was essentially in Finance. He wasn't involved in manufacturing. But I was talking about the meaning of "one off" in 1925. It didn't mean a single unique manufactured product etc in 1888.

And you can't just say things and expect people to believe you. Please provide some evidence of "an average person" in or around 1888 picking up (to use your expression) "one off" to mean something unique or not to be repeated. When you fail to do so perhaps you will finally accept that it was an impossibility.

[Lombro2]

Average persons picked it up and Maybrick was not an average person. He was in trade and manufacture. Even Michael Barrett would know that.

I would just give him credit for that and say it fits very well. No bumbling here from your buffoon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No average person is going to use "one off" as unique. They're going to use it as an "aberration".

Almost no not-so-average, published writer is going to use "one of" as an aberration. He uses it as unique because he's not in the business of selling "aberrations".

That's apparently the way it's been for over 100 years. It's a subtle difference but it's there.

ab·er·ra·tion

1. a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically one that is unwelcome.

Reboot would be a good example. It was here long before PCs. Now you'd have to check every computer specialist's diary to see who, if anyone, came up with "reboot my blank". It's not technically a restart as in the way it is used mostly today. Restart is just turning it back on or off and on.

I thought we went over this weeks ago Lombro. I use "unique" as a shorthand for all the shades of meaning of "one off" to save me having to type out a string of synonyms each time.

100 years ago was 1925, so that gets you nowhere with respect to Maybrick writing the diary, but, at that stage, "one off" wasn't used by the "average person" at all. It was a manufacturing term only, not one in common use in the English language. It didn't suggest an aberration at all at that time. It was a reference to a single, unique manufactured product, pattern or job. As has been demonstrated many times, it only entered common usage in the English language after the Second World War when the type of use by "the average person" that you're thinking of commenced.

Will this ever sink in Lombro?

[Lombro2]

No average person is going to use "one off" as unique. They're going to use it as an "aberration".

Almost no not-so-average, published writer is going to use "one of" as an aberration. He uses it as unique because he's not in the business of selling "aberrations".

That's apparently the way it's been for over 100 years. It's a subtle difference but it's there.

ab·er·ra·tion

1. a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically one that is unwelcome.

Reboot would be a good example. It was here long before PCs. Now you'd have to check every computer specialist's diary to see who, if anyone, came up with "reboot my blank". It's not technically a restart as in the way it is used mostly today. Restart is just turning it back on or off and on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All I can say to you is that I absolutely know what I would or would not be capable of. I understand my own limitations and I think that helps with understanding the limitations of certain other individuals, including both Barretts. Whenever I hear the same old nonsense about teenagers writing the Maybrick diary over a wet weekend, I see someone who has very little understanding of their own limitations, or is just trying to show how clever they are because they would have done a much better and more sophisticated job of it.

But nobody ever actually practises what they preach. The only one that springs to mind is Mike Barrett, bless him, who did at least have a bash at it, but his limitations were only too obvious to me and screamed out from every syllable, just like anything else he ever tried to write or type unaided. Anyone who saw those pages and thought otherwise should really start to consider whether they have limitations of their own.

Love,

Caz
X

I'm afraid I don't understand that answer, Caz. Surely everyone is different. I'm not (I think) capable of robbing a bank or committing a fraud or murdering someone but plenty of other people are. So how does my capability affect the capability of anyone else? And how can your own capabilities possibly affect the capabilities of the Barretts? Also I understand you to say that you accept that someone might have forged the diary. So you must think that someone could have been capable of doing it, even if you're not.

If anyone has said the diary was written over "a wet weekend" I must have missed that. I wasn't aware anyone was suggesting it. I'm certainly not.

As for Mike Barrett's capabilities, didn’t Ike accept on another thread that once Mike's diary pages were lightly edited, with spelling and grammar corrected, they were very similar to what we find in the diary? If Anne performed the same editing role, why couldn’t Mike have written the diary? Many authors have been known to dictate rather than write, haven't they, and Mike could speak English so I can't see why he couldn't at least have spoken the diary text with his wife improving it. I mean, seriously, how can we rule out that possibility?