Trip Over for Trip Up

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Luckily Victorians rarely got up to that kind of unsavouriness of course.

And nobody in the Maybrick household would have dared intercept letters meant for 'Sir' James. But I would think he took precautions - of a sort.

Florie was another kettle of poissons.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi RJ

As I understand Lombro’s meaning, he asks not about the existence of the phrases “to trip over X” or “to trip up X”, but about their transitivity.

The forger uses “trip over” as an intransitive verb, and not with a literal meaning, but as a metaphor more commonly associated with “trip up”.

So I believe Lombro is looking for Victorian examples of trip over/trip up used intransitively, i.e. without an object.

All the examples you’ve provided are transitive.

Exactly.

If 'trip up' to mean 'make a mistake' does turn out to be too modern for Maybrick, while being perfectly natural for the Barretts, and more so than 'trip over', will they have dodged another bullet by sheer luck?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I don't own a Victorian thesaurus or dictionary, but my modern dictionary only has one reference to poste, as in poste restante - which was a service offered by the post office [or post house if you will] to keep mail for the recipient to collect in person. Quite useful in an age when married men and women might want to send and receive love letters in the post without them being intercepted on the doormat!.

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Luckily Victorians rarely got up to that kind of unsavouriness of course.

[caz]

‘Poste’ wouldn’t be an anachronism in a diary alleged to have been written by a Victorian; it would just be a modern man using an old word. Whereas a phrase like ‘one off instance’ would have been an anachronism as it wasn’t in use in that form in 1888.

Hi Herlock,

I don't own a Victorian thesaurus or dictionary, but my modern dictionary only has one reference to poste, as in poste restante - which was a service offered by the post office [or post house if you will] to keep mail for the recipient to collect in person. Quite useful in an age when married men and women might want to send and receive love letters in the post without them being intercepted on the doormat!

Hi Lombro2,

In case you were wondering, I see the word poste [whether in Poste House or poste haste] as poste.

I think Palmer got himself a wee bit confused over the usage in the diary of 'trip over' - which is all that matters here:

'He believes I will screw up
but I have no fear
I cannot redeem it here
For I could not possibly redeem it here
Of this certain fact, I could send him poste haste
if he requests that be the case.

Am I not a clever fellow'

This is all about 'Sir Jim' being too clever to screw up - or trip up. He does not fear making the mistake of falling into whatever trap he imagines has been set for the killer.

All the examples we have been treated to, where someone trips up over an object, or is tripped up by something or someone, are irrelevant to this discussion and only muddy the waters.

What I have yet to see - and I think this was your point - are examples from Maybrick's day of people tripping up through their own actions, as in screwing up, fouling up or making a boo-boo.

We have had decades of modern hoax conspiracy theorists poring over those 63 pages for words, phrases and expressions that would be too modern for Maybrick, but few have come at this from the opposite direction to see how many potential literary bullets would have been dodged if the original text was created a hundred years later by the Barretts.

If I had tried to pull off such a stunt pre-internet, I would have feared tripping up on every other page without the assistance of a wide range of mid-19th century writings, including a thesaurus and dictionary. In fact, I would have hesitated to write anything at all that could not be found in one of those sources.

People have pointed out quite rightly that there is a lot of repetition in the diary, but if an amateur, first-time hoaxer is not checking everything they write for its compatibility with the 1880s, a repeated expression may be no less of a pratfall than a one-off instance.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lombro2]

An anachronism can go both ways and therefore can work for both sides. Unless an alleged modern author can be shown to know and understand it. it’s an anachronistic use for him.

Are you suggesting Barrett was more creative with “trip over” and “poste” than Maybrick could be?

“One off instance” wasn’t in print in 1888 anymore than something like “reboot a romance” was in 1992.

If both lived in the modern era, who’d be the first to say, “I’d like to reboot my romance with Anne/Florrie”?

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘Poste’ wouldn’t be an anachronism in a diary alleged to have been written by a Victorian; it would just be a modern man using an old word. Whereas a phrase like ‘one off instance’ would have been an anachronism as it wasn’t in use in that form in 1888.

[Lombro2]

What I think is highly unlikely, Lombro II, is that an ex-scrap metal dealer in Liverpool in April 1992 would write a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts and include the notion of an intransitive 'trip over'. It was either a truly terrible solecism which had no obvious prompt or else some well-researched anachronistic use of a term long since lost to intransitive usage.

I think “trip over” can join the other “old fashioned” anachronisms in the Diary like “poste” as in “poste haste” and “poste house” the would demand a great level of knowledge research and creativity for a modern forger.

”Bumbling buffoon” and “one off instance” would only require creativity from a Victorian. So who is more likely to be that creative—James McCartney Maybrick or Mike Bongo Starr?

[Lombro2]

Three. You’re obviously good at textual analysis and at determining authorship. And you don’t even see text in colour like Caz!

Maybe English as a first language isn’t such a handicap as I thought!

[Scott Nelson]

Lombro2,

How many usernames have you used here in the past few years?

[Iconoclast]

Well, someone was tripped over, if you know what I mean… after you had to think about it for a while.
I even looked in case there was a rhyme for “over” in the poem like “clover” or “dover” but, no, there’s none. So without an object or even a rhyme, it’s anachronistic, albeit from a past that’s obviously happened. Does an anachronism from the past prove anything about a supposed modern forgery?
Can a seemingly unprecedented, intransitive usage prove something? I think it proves creativity of language.

What I think is highly unlikely, Lombro II, is that an ex-scrap metal dealer in Liverpool in April 1992 would write a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts and include the notion of an intransitive 'trip over'. It was either a truly terrible solecism which had no obvious prompt or else some well-researched anachronistic use of a term long since lost to intransitive usage.

The latter would obviously require research, presumably (to use a term in 1992 in a context more familiar to a far earlier age) and this brings me to RJ's point - made in relation to the discovery (if discovery it properly was) of a manuscript by Shakespeare's sister Joan of the origins of which was said:

Professor Steggle said: “Even thirty years ago, a researcher approaching a problem like this would have been based in a single big research library, using printed catalogues and even card catalogues to try to find copies of this text. But research libraries have now made many of their resources available digitally, so that it is possible to look across many different libraries in different countries at once, and what’s more, you can look through the whole text, not just at the title and other details.

The thing is, there is no evidence of Mike Barrett ensconced for days and weeks in any such "big research library" and yet he apparently sat down one day and bashed out a text (and a watch) which has refused to lie down and die these thirty years since, full of intriguing gems like "trip over" instead of "trip up", amongst many other intriguing and unexpected Easter eggs.

[Lombro2]

Well, someone was tripped over, if you know what I mean… after you had to think about it for a while.

I even looked in case there was a rhyme for “over” in the poem like “clover” or “dover” but, no, there’s none. So without an object or even a rhyme, it’s anachronistic, albeit from a past that’s obviously happened. Does an anachronism from the past prove anything about a supposed modern forgery?

Can a seemingly unprecedented, intransitive usage prove something? I think it proves creativity of language.

[rjpalmer]

Any lack of quotation marks should set off alarm bells to anyone interested in the Authorship of anything.

While on the subject of Mr. or Mrs. "Shake-Speare"...here's an aside.

Two weeks ago, when the story made the rounds in the newspapers, I half expected to see Ike gracing us with one of his excited commentaries.

March: Joan Shakespeare | News and features | University of Bristol

Once in a very blue moon, a manuscript is found hidden in the rafters of an old historic house; rarer still, two centuries further on its authorship is re-examined and reformulated.

Hope springs eternal, "Lombro."

P. S. Though, it might be added that the original attribution was debunked because it would have been an anachronism.

[Lombro2]

Any lack of quotation marks should set off alarm bells to anyone interested in the Authorship of anything.

[rjpalmer]

It’s interesting that you quoted “Shakespeare”.

Uh oh. The quotation marks are setting off alarm bells.

[Lombro2]

I certainly will. I'll leave you with this as well.

"Is it two days ago since I tripped up thy heels and beat thee before the king? Draw, you rogue, for though it be night yet the moon shines."

King Lear (c. 1605)

It’s interesting that you quoted “Shakespeare”. I just self-published for the first time. Of course, I didn’t write it myself. See if you can figure out who wrote it, since you’re so good at it!

I’ll give you a sample. Are you ready? Here it goes!

A pony! A pony!
My Kingdom for a polo pony!