Trip Over for Trip Up

[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?

[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

[rjpalmer]

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

Actually, I'm not even remotely confused, Caz, except my usual confusion as to why you and Tom and Lombro think you've made a valid observation.

Yes, Lombro claimed that 'trip over' is an archaic predecessor of 'trip up,' but what you seem to be failing to grasp is that he produced no evidence to show that this is the case.

He's already conceded that he misread the one example he did give, and that Keely's meaning was 'stumble upon' (as in 'stumble upon the truth') rather than 'trip up.'

With that, you and Lombro and Tom are left without any peas in your peashooter.

No one has shown that the phrasing is Victorian, nor that the phrase wouldn't have been just as jarring to the Victorians' ears as it is to yours and Tom's and Lombro's.

I could just as easily claim--with a similar lack of evidence--that 'trip over' was an archaic version of 'trip up' dating to the 16th Century, and thus Maybrick's use of it in the diary is a jarring error, but I'm not quite that desperate.

And not that it matters one bit, but how exactly do you know that you have correctly grasped the hoaxer's meaning?

The initial entry reads:

Sir Jim trip over
fear
have it near
redeem it near
case
poste haste


It's poetry. The line separations don't always signal the end of a thought, and the grammar can be clipped.

Why couldn't Barrett have meant 'Sir Jim [will] trip over fear?'

It's a legitimate reading of the text, and five minutes of looking turns up modern writers expressing this same thought:

A poet named Katrina-Ariel has piece called "Fireflies in My Heart."

I trip over fear as I dare
To follow the breeze
I run through the trees


Another blogger writes:

"I started to trip over fear, and fell into confidence."

The New Hope Community Church advertises a sermon based on Isaiah 8:14:

"Many run towards trouble and trip over fear and confusion..."


Sorry Caz, there is literally nothing to see here.

[caz]

Sorry Caz, there is literally nothing to see here.

I'll read the rest of Palmer's post tomorrow, but for now I would only dispute his use of 'literally', because I can see words here, there and everywhere - as James McCartney Maybrick might have said.

See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.

Pedanticaz

[Scott Nelson]

Love,

Caz
X

I'd love to see an analysis of these colors. And what color would the 'X' be? There used to be three of them!

[Lombro2]

I could just as easily claim--with a similar lack of evidence--that 'trip over' was an archaic version of 'trip up' dating to the 16th Century, and thus Maybrick's use of it in the diary is a jarring error, but I'm not quite that desperate.

And not that it matters one bit, but how exactly do you know that you have correctly grasped the hoaxer's meaning?

The initial entry reads:

Sir Jim trip over
fear
have it near
redeem it near
case
poste haste


It's poetry. The line separations don't always signal the end of a thought, and the grammar can be clipped.

Why couldn't Barrett have meant 'Sir Jim [will] trip over fear?'

It's a legitimate reading of the text, and five minutes of looking turns up modern writers expressing this same thought:

A poet named Katrina-Ariel has piece called "Fireflies in My Heart."

I trip over fear as I dare
To follow the breeze
I run through the trees


Another blogger writes:

"I started to trip over fear, and fell into confidence."

The New Hope Community Church advertises a sermon based on Isaiah 8:14:

"Many run towards trouble and trip over fear and confusion..."


Sorry Caz, there is literally nothing to see here.

We have the finished version:

He believes I will trip over
But I have no fear

What do you make of that?

It’s still intransitive no matter what he’s talking about. It’s not archaic. It’s original. Like “one off instance” would be to a Victorian. But at least it would be plausibly original to a Victorian.

[caz]

I'd love to see an analysis of these colors. And what color would the 'X' be? There used to be three of them!

Just for you, Scotty...

I paint it black, like Jagger and Richards.

XXX

[caz]

Actually, I'm not even remotely confused, Caz, except my usual confusion as to why you and Tom and Lombro think you've made a valid observation.

What's invalid about quoting the diary's choice of words and asking a simple question? I was always told there are no stupid questions; only stupid answers.

The question in this case is whether 'trip up' - as in make a mistake - is too modern for Maybrick and, if so, does this mean the Barretts would have dodged a bullet if they had created the text, by not thinking to write 'trip up'?

Yes, Lombro claimed that 'trip over' is an archaic predecessor of 'trip up,' but what you seem to be failing to grasp is that he produced no evidence to show that this is the case.

Perhaps Palmer could indicate where I failed to grasp this. Naturally, the next question could have been whether 'trip over' - as in make a mistake - would be too modern for Maybrick, obsolete by the 19th century, unheard of at any time, or just right. We are all familiar with 'tripping up' in that sense, but I for one am unfamiliar with 'tripping over' outside of the diary, so the question is an interesting one and I thank Palmer for reminding me of it. Perhaps he has a view based on a superior knowledge of this precise usage? That could be, er, useful.

He's already conceded that he misread the one example he did give, and that Keely's meaning was 'stumble upon' (as in 'stumble upon the truth') rather than 'trip up.'

With that, you and Lombro and Tom are left without any peas in your peashooter.

Oh dear. What a shame. Never mind. Personally, I don't possess a peashooter, or any other vegetable [sorry, legume] based weapons, and I don't suppose they'd have any effect if I did. But it conjures up a colourful image so well done, Palmer.

No one has shown that the phrasing is Victorian, nor that the phrase wouldn't have been just as jarring to the Victorians' ears as it is to yours and Tom's and Lombro's.

I could just as easily claim--with a similar lack of evidence--that 'trip over' was an archaic version of 'trip up' dating to the 16th Century, and thus Maybrick's use of it in the diary is a jarring error, but I'm not quite that desperate.

Good for Palmer. I'm not sure who he is accusing of desperation here, but I'm glad to know his own desperation is limited to trying to force the pen between Anne Barrett's fingers - and by implication the etching tool into Robbie or Albert Johnson's hand. He's been at it for a while now, but I expect he's still beavering away behind the scenes to get whatever it takes to deliver the fatal blow. No point in buying myself a pea shooter if he's about to return with a loaded sledgehammer.

And not that it matters one bit, but how exactly do you know that you have correctly grasped the hoaxer's meaning?

The initial entry reads:

Sir Jim trip over
fear
have it near
redeem it near
case
poste haste


It's poetry. The line separations don't always signal the end of a thought, and the grammar can be clipped.

Why couldn't Barrett have meant 'Sir Jim [will] trip over fear?'

That would only be possible if it could be proved that Barrett had any say in the matter, but I think it's a stretch beyond Crashaw territory to say that our Mike could have been familiar with this usage in 1992 and put it in the diary just for jolly. He certainly could not have found Palmer's three modern examples in five minutes, and why on earth would he be looking at modern writers in any case? Palmer had another motive entirely for doing so.

In a different context, 'trip over fear' could mean 'trip due to fear', but it doesn't really work any better in the diary than Palmer's examples.

As Lombro observed, it's the finalised version that counts, which Palmer chose to ignore because it shoots peas directly at his funny little theory about tripping over fear:

He believes I will trip over,
but I have no fear.
For I could not possibly
redeem it here.

The meaning looks crystal clear to me: 'Sir Jim' has no fear of tripping up, screwing up or falling into a trap, by redeeming something connected with the latest murder, because he's currently 'here' [in Liverpool] and too far away.

Sorry Caz, there is literally nothing to see here.

Nice of Palmer to apologise for this funny little diversion, taking us nowhere.

[Geddy2112]

I'm not happy about all this Sir Jim lark. Are we suggesting Saville faked the diary?

[rjpalmer]

"Yes, Lombro claimed that 'trip over' is an archaic predecessor of 'trip up,' but what you seem to be failing to grasp is that he produced no evidence to show that this is the case." - R. J. Palmer

Perhaps Palmer could indicate where I failed to grasp this.

Certainly, I'd be happy to.

In Post #3.

Lombro made his claims in post #1 and post #2.

Immediately, in Post #3 you wrote:

"Another question for Anne Graham then, Lombro2, by anyone who still believes her fingerprints are all over the diary...."

The obvious implication is that Lombro's claims were somehow valid and thus Anne's alleged authorship of the diary was somehow being undermined.

I then challenged the validity of Lombro's claims.

You then came back and apparently agree with my concerns, but no one would know it, because you buried your agreement in a harangue and claimed my questions were obvious.

Then why didn't you ask them before suggesting we quiz Anne Graham about it?

In short: business as usual.

The diary depicts a man who struggles to write poetry. He even complains about his struggles. Why can't the clumsy line simply be an example of that?

Or, why can't it simply be an example of Anne's occasional use of a malaprop?

When you come up with evidence of Lombro's claims, maybe I'll feel obliged to ask your question to Anne, but I fail to see how it would be relevant.

Even if you proved the idiom was Victorian--and you haven't--outside of quantum physics, time is linear, so anachronisms only work in one direction.

Always nice to hear from you, Caz.

I get the decided feeling that if I said the sun came up in the east, you'd argue the point, so I'll leave you and Owl and Tom and Jay and Lombro to solve this most perplexing of mysteries.

I can clearly be no help in finding the answer you want to hear.

[caz]

"Yes, Lombro claimed that 'trip over' is an archaic predecessor of 'trip up,' but what you seem to be failing to grasp is that he produced no evidence to show that this is the case." - R. J. Palmer




Certainly, I'd be happy to.

In Post #3.

Lombro made his claims in post #1 and post #2.

Immediately, in Post #3 you wrote:

"Another question for Anne Graham then, Lombro2, by anyone who still believes her fingerprints are all over the diary...."

The obvious implication is that Lombro's claims were somehow valid and thus Anne's alleged authorship of the diary was somehow being undermined.

The only obvious implication was that if Anne wrote the words in the diary, only Anne could tell us why she put 'trip over' and not 'trip up' or something similar, and whether she had considered 'trip up' too modern for Maybrick, but 'trip over' would be okay. It might even be a more common expression in Liverpool for all I know, so I might ask around when I'm next up there, although it probably wouldn't help with the 'too modern' issue.

I then challenged the validity of Lombro's claims.

You then came back and apparently agree with my concerns, but no one would know it, because you buried your agreement in a harangue and claimed my questions were obvious.

Palmer sounds peeved. Maybe I should let him write my posts in future.

The diary depicts a man who struggles to write poetry. He even complains about his struggles. Why can't the clumsy line simply be an example of that?

Or, why can't it simply be an example of Anne's occasional use of a malaprop?

Why would these questions not be better directed at the one person Palmer believes can supply the answers?

Another question Palmer might like to ask Anne is whether the word 'instance' in the very first sentence of the typescript was one of her occasional malaprops, which she recognised as an error and corrected to 'instant' when copying it into Mike's doctored photo album, between 1st and 12th April 1992.

When you come up with evidence of Lombro's claims, maybe I'll feel obliged to ask your question to Anne, but I fail to see how it would be relevant.

Palmer can please himself. If he already has the 'goods' on Anne, to put the pen in her hand and much of the diary's use of language in her brain, I'm happy for him and I look forward to seeing what he's got - if I live that long.

Even if you proved the idiom was Victorian--and you haven't--outside of quantum physics, time is linear, so anachronisms only work in one direction.

Gosh, I wish I'd thought of that. There's no pulling the wool over Palmer's eyes in 2024, is there? Where is Mike Barrett when we need him? There'll never be another like him, when his acrimonious divorce promoted him with unseemly haste to commander-in-chief of Wool Pullers.

Always nice to hear from you, Caz.

And there's no pulling the wool over my eyes either, but nice try.

I get the decided feeling that if I said the sun came up in the east, you'd argue the point, so I'll leave you and Owl and Tom and Jay and Lombro to solve this most perplexing of mysteries.

Strange but true, I will soon be in Roses, on the Costa Brava in north east Spain, where you can look out to sea and watch the sun set. I can never quite get my head round it, and I do have trouble with my east and west at the best of times, but there it is.

The trouble with Palmer's analogy is that he is confusing his admirably unshakeable faith in Mike Barrett with reality.

I can clearly be no help in finding the answer you want to hear.

If Palmer imagines I would want to hear any answer other than the correct one, I can only infer that he is judging me by his own standards, and can therefore only hear the answer that is constantly ringing in his own ears, drowning out all other sounds.

[caz]

I'm not happy about all this Sir Jim lark. Are we suggesting Saville faked the diary?

I wouldn't put anything past Jimmy So-vile.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ms Diddles]

I wouldn't put anything past Jimmy So-vile.

Love,

Caz
X

I didn't read the previous posts properly and was wondering what your beef was with Jimmy Somerville there for a minute, Caz!

Got it now!!

[caz]

Ha ha, Ms D! No beef with Jimmy Somerville, I can assure you. Smalltown Boy is one of my all-time favourite tracks.

By the way, you are brave to come here without signing off:

'The Barretts dunnit.'

People might think you haven't yet had your mind made up for you.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ms Diddles]

Ha ha, Ms D! No beef with Jimmy Somerville, I can assure you. Smalltown Boy is one of my all-time favourite tracks.

By the way, you are brave to come here without signing off:

'The Barretts dunnit.'

People might think you haven't yet had your mind made up for you.

Love,

Caz
X

Oh, Smalltown Boy is a great track and Jimmy comes across as a lovely wee guy.

That's why I was a little surprised that you (apparently) held him in such low esteem!

Yeah, I tend not to stray into diary-land as a rule, but for the record I'm in "The Barretts didnae dae it" camp.

Best get outta here!