When Did "One Off" Take Off?

[erobitha]

It's not a question anymore about whether Maybrick was Jack, because he wasn't, and there's no credible evidence nor any logical reason to suggest that he was.

I do enjoy everyone's amnesia when it comes to the watch.

[John Wheat]

Hang on, John.

You were responding directly to the following words of comfort and reassurance that one day we would surely have the evidence to prove that the Barretts wrote the diary - not just that it was 'most likely':



The above auction action was brought to you by none other than Mike Barrett, in his confessional affidavit of 5th January 1995. So what did you mean by calling this 'rubbish'?

Love,

Caz
X

It is rubbish though. Odds on the Barretts wrote the diary.

[caz]

Rubbish. The Diary is a hoax. Most likely written by Anne and Mike Barrett.

Hang on, John.

You were responding directly to the following words of comfort and reassurance that one day we would surely have the evidence to prove that the Barretts wrote the diary - not just that it was 'most likely':

One day, I'm sure, we'll find that man with the Liverpool accent who sold Stewart the watch in the 60s, and the bill of sale, and we'll find that Outhwaite auction ticket and the auction house inventory with the Diary described perfectly--

"Vintage Edwardian notebook used as a photo album with some maritime photos and postcards and at least 60 blank pages, some staining on the inside cover. Lot includes a one-off square compass."

The above auction action was brought to you by none other than Mike Barrett, in his confessional affidavit of 5th January 1995. So what did you mean by calling this 'rubbish'?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Okay, that seems like a fair comeback. That backs up the other Michael B's point.

But I still say, No. The British examples from prior to 1990 are largely from books on manufacturing, Hansard, and Glasgow newspapers. They would still represent a fraction of a fraction or .0000004% of British English books. And we're not talking fiction books. Again, the term only took off in fiction and therefore the popular print in 2000.




Unless you have specialized interests or knowledge or run with the right crowd, who would know this term in 1992? I was there in 1992. I read Shirley Harrison in 1993. I live in a Commonwealth country and I wouldn't know the term meant something unique or a one-shot deal unless Shirley Harrison explained it.

The other Michael B heard the term but he said he worked in a foundry. Caz knew the term, whenever she read the Diary book, and she said she had an uncle in a foundry who used the term. Why would they have to mention that if the term was popular?

Michael Barrett would have had to have specialized knowledge and then he probably would have had to coin the term "one off instance" himself. But he's a genius and a Liverpudlian. What can I say?

Slight correction and clarification, Lombro2: it was my late father-in-law who would use the expression "one-off" this and "one-off" that, which he had originally picked up from his reserved occupation days during the war, casting ships' propellers in a foundry. He wasn't still using it in that context when I knew him, from the late 1970s, and it was a new one on me - something I never learned at school. His wartime job eventually killed him when he died in 1989 from asbestosis. His last school report concluded: 'He has clean hands and swims well'.

Every day can be a school day if we let it, and we can learn new things from anyone.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I have made this point before. Maybrick does not use the hyphen (mind, he never does) and that leaves a huge ambiguity around what he meant. Did he mean 'a one-off instance' or did he mean 'a one 'off' instance' (i.e., aberrant and not to be repeated)?

We have to bear in mind the context: he was presumably writing 'from fresh' in his mind and therefore he was exposed to linguistic inexactitude and error just as we are when we write or type. He didn't have the advantage of the back-space key or Tipp-Ex and he may not have cared if his statement was not good English. 'A one' is a tautology but it is commonly used in the north-east of England (my own mum used it all the time). I can't comment on those southerners down in Liverpool but it is possible that they also used the expression 'a one' where 'a' or 'one' would have sufficed. Maybrick may well have then felt 'off' was the best way to describe his aberrant behaviour, and then 'instance' is kinder to himself and his ego than, say, 'brutality' or whatever. Thus, we get 'a one off instance' and we think we've found an anachronism which kills the scrapbook dead in its tracks, when we may not have done so.

We have to be so careful that we can be certain that we are right when we seek to turn the ambiguous into the categorical because it suits us to do so.

At this point, it may help to remind one or two posters of the actual words as they appear in the diary:

...I apologised, a one off
instance, I said, which I regretted and I assured the whore
it would never happen again. The stupid bitch believed
me.

'Sir Jim' admits he lied to Florie at this point but she appeared to accept his apology and assurances that this was a single, regrettable lapse of self control.

The whole thing is a tautology when 'a one off instance' [NO HYPHEN] is interpreted as a unique event, because while he might have needed to spell out to Florie that this meant 'it would never happen again', he hardly needed to explain it to himself in his own private diary.

So......

...I apologised, 'a single aberrant
lapse', I said, which I regretted and I assured the whore
it would not be repeated. The stupid bitch believed
me.

Better?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

And you were doing so well up until then, Mike.

It's not a question anymore because 99.9% of commentators are jumping on the comfortable bandwagon of the popular view. You know who I mean - every single commentator who ever tells us that the September 25 'Dear Boss' letter was penned by an 'enterprising' journalist!

They are such sheep that they do not even stop to think, "Why am I using the word 'enterprising'?" and "On what grounds am I drawing my conclusion?".

Before deciding that something is unequivocally true, we need the evidence for it first. The 'enterprising' journalist has no evidence bar a claim by Best in the 1950s that he did it, but that's irrelevant to those who just want to take the comfortable bandwagon to wherever they think they're going.

Same with the Maybrick scrapbook. Nothing is proven. The jury remains out. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise (especially not yourself).

Allo again, Ike.

Whether Dear Boss was written by a journalist or not, it certainly wasn't written by Maybrick, nor was the diary. The only evidence linking Jim to Jack is that very same diary which he never wrote. There's similarly no evidence pinning him in or around London on the nights of the murders.

There's nothing monumental ruling him out, but there's very little evidence to rule basically anyone out, including the cat's mother!

Cheers!

[Iconoclast]

It's not a question anymore about whether Maybrick was Jack, because he wasn't, and there's no credible evidence nor any logical reason to suggest that he was.

And you were doing so well up until then, Mike.

It's not a question anymore because 99.9% of commentators are jumping on the comfortable bandwagon of the popular view. You know who I mean - every single commentator who ever tells us that the September 25 'Dear Boss' letter was penned by an 'enterprising' journalist!

They are such sheep that they do not even stop to think, "Why am I using the word 'enterprising'?" and "On what grounds am I drawing my conclusion?".

Before deciding that something is unequivocally true, we need the evidence for it first. The 'enterprising' journalist has no evidence bar a claim by Best in the 1950s that he did it, but that's irrelevant to those who just want to take the comfortable bandwagon to wherever they think they're going.

Same with the Maybrick scrapbook. Nothing is proven. The jury remains out. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise (especially not yourself).

[Mike J. G.]

I've never really understood the whole "one-off" debate. As far as I can see, most articles on its origin point towards the early 1930s, so it's very unlikely that sir Jim coined it.

There's more than one article online that mentions its origin, from this:

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/one-off-is-not-a-new-expression/

To this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/m...anguage-t.html

As for Mike Barrett, all I can say is I've known the phrase for as long as I can remember here in Liverpool and I'm nearing 40 years old. I still hear it used regularly, and it makes me chuckle as I always think of the scrapbook now when I hear it.

So yeah, unlikely to have been written by Maybrick, but we already know that the handwriting wasn't his.

The handwriting also wasn't Mike's, but we can safely assume that the ink was put to paper after 1889, and very likely after 1934 when one-off popped up as a phrase.

It's not a question anymore about whether Maybrick was Jack, because he wasn't, and there's no credible evidence nor any logical reason to suggest that he was.

The only question remaining is who penned the scrapbook and why did they bother? My guess would be for shits and giggles. Why not? It's a great little piece of fiction.

[Herlock Sholmes]

AI Overview

The cotton trade is the exchange of cotton and cotton textiles...

In the textile industry, "one off" refers to a single, unique piece of fabric or garment...


Michael Barrett knew all of this without the aid of AI, not just the term one-off but it's etymology and how to incorporate it into his story. Same as he knew what an Victorian (or Edwardian) office notebook was.

You're using AI to tell you what "one off" means? Did you not think a dictionary might provide a more accurate answer?

The fact of the matter is that in the modern world "one off" can refer to a single unique item in every single industry in the world.

But, aside from that, it has literally nothing to do with cotton, or the textile industry, specifically.

It's not part of its etymology at all - even the AI Overview you posted doesn't say it is - and when used multiple times by the general public and writers multiple times prior to 1992 - such as in the examples I gave you from the 1980s - had no association whatsoever with cotton.

By using the expression "one off instance" in the diary, Mike Barrett, if he wrote it, was doing no more than showing he spoke the English language

[Lombro2]

AI Overview

The cotton trade is the exchange of cotton and cotton textiles...

In the textile industry, "one off" refers to a single, unique piece of fabric or garment...


Michael Barrett knew all of this without the aid of AI, not just the term one-off but it's etymology and how to incorporate it into his story. Same as he knew what an Victorian (or Edwardian) office notebook was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the kind of thing that makes people throw a fit and have a hundred-off instance!

They can't seem to believe that Michael Barrett was smart enough to put a phrase together. He had to read every volume ever written past, present and future, and be spoon-fed.

That graph you've posted is taken from one data set. It only tells a small part of the story, so doesn't support the argument you're trying to make. You need to look at all available data sources.

There's absolutely no way that Michael Barrett, if he forged the diary, coined or put together an expression that was already very much in existence.

The expression, incidentally, was "one off". The addition of "instance" could have been done by anyone who knew of the expression, whether or not they had already read or heard someone else saying "one off instance", but it had clearly done by many many people before March 1992.

[Iconoclast]

That's very nice of you to give us a gift. Or of retrofitting and regifting mine.
Now where would you have picked up the word or phrase--"one off"? Down at the pub?

Possibly at one of the three occasions I went to university, Lombro2. As an educated guy, I know lots of ‘big’ words. That said, I’ve just asked Mrs Iconoclast (who did not have the luxury of going to university) and she said she knew what ‘one-off’ meant from a very young age - she pinned it down to the late 1970s. I’m two years older than her and I’m pretty sure I knew the term earlier in the 1970s, but just to stay on your point, my final postgraduate course ended in - coincidentally - 1992, and I definitely knew what the term was by then.

Too be honest, I’m staggered you think it could be otherwise. I would expect everyone in the UK to know that term and exactly what it meant long long long before 1992.

[Lombro2]

Samples of one are never strong samples, but I for one - aged 30 in 1992 - definitely knew of and used the concept of 'one-off 'event'' and was not even vaguely rattled or confused by it when I read it (one off instance) in James Maybrick's scrapbook in 1997 (Harrison, 1993).

(I was responding to other comments made by Lombro2 if anyone wonders why I did not state this earlier.)

That's very nice of you to give us a gift. Or of retrofitting and regifting mine.

Now where would you have picked up the word or phrase--"one off"? Down at the pub?

[Lombro2]

This is the kind of thing that makes people throw a fit and have a hundred-off instance!

They can't seem to believe that Michael Barrett was smart enough to put a phrase together. He had to read every volume ever written past, present and future, and be spoon-fed.

[Iconoclast]

The idea that this expression couldn't or wouldn't have been familiar to Michael Barrett in 1992, if that's what you're trying to argue, is unsustainable.

Samples of one are never strong samples, but I for one - aged 30 in 1992 - definitely knew of and used the concept of 'one-off 'event'' and was not even vaguely rattled or confused by it when I read it (one off instance) in James Maybrick's scrapbook in 1997 (Harrison, 1993).

(I was responding to other comments made by Lombro2 if anyone wonders why I did not state this earlier.)