The One Off Meltdown

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Sean,

Many thanks for posting a great example ("that one off chance" meaning a single unusual - but not unique - chance) the premise for which is syntactically the same as someone stating that hitting his wife would not happen again because it was "a one off instance". Of course, James Maybrick in the James Maybrick scrapbook did exactly that and - by it, as I have stated many times and been roundly mocked for doing so - he could have meant "a one 'off' instance". If one is permitted to type (and then publish) an 'off chance' in 1883, why is one not also permitted to write an 'off instance' in 1888? I can answer my own question, of course, which is that - to agree to this premise - one's argument around the evidence for a hoax falls immediately away and that is not to be permitted around these here parts.

So, it may well be (though we still don't know for certain) that the expression "one-off instance" was impossible in 1888, but can we still say - in all seriousness - that the expression "one 'off' instance" was also impossible in 1888 given its syntactic equivalent used at least as early as six years beforehand?

Obviously, we all know what's coming - the denial of the possibility of syntactic equivalence (probably via lengthy posts deconstructing the term 'syntactic equivalence' - as if my choice of terminology has any bearing whatsoever on the truthfulness of the premise) from all the usual suspects (well, the two of them) so I shan't be engaging in the to-and-fro and the dance moves of making something possible appear quite impossible. I've made my point, and I'm not sure I have anything to add to it after your generous identification of the very thing I would have been looking for had I arsed myself to (and certainly not whilst simultaneously watching Celtic versus St. Mirren now that the Scottish season has started).

I'll just end by reminding everyone of something which I think Caz first noted - namely, that if the expression used in the scrapbook was meant to convey "a one-off instance" then it is immediately followed by a tautology as the next claim is (the equivalent of) "Never to be repeated" - whereas no such tautology leads from "a one 'off' instance" as it is a claim that the instance was simply unusual or out-of-character rather than necessarily 'unique'. So James Maybrick writing that hitting his wife was nothing but an abhorrent instance fits perfectly with his following claim that it will not happen again. If you don't like his use of "a one", by the way, you should spend more time in northern England where it is perfectly common to create redundancy by using the two words together. My own mother used it all her life. If I said to her (as I frequently did), "Would you like a cup of tea, Mam?", she'd say to me, "Yes, I would love a one". I take it that a Scouser in the nineteenth century may well have been no different to a Geordie in the twentieth century in this respect (and - even if you don't accept such redundancy as being a common feature of northern dialects, I would remind you all that this was just someone writing and not all appropriate literary conventions can be assumed of someone writing their thoughts as they come to them).

So thank you for that, Sean. Anyone old enough to remember, for example, the certain fact that Michael Maybrick did not write lyrics? That didn't age well, now did it? And yet it was commonly trumpeted as all the evidence we all needed in order to know the scrapbook was a hoax. As usual, the 'killer blow' that exposes the hoax falls apart under a little scrutiny (but watch out for the frantic spluttering of the naysaying classes - any moment now...).

Ike

An 'off chance" is a long-established noun in the English dictionary, Ike, going back to the 1830s:

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/off-chance_n?tl=true

There is no such thing, however, as an "off instance" and never has been:

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionar...q=off+instance

That's the difference.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Oxford English Dictionary cites the earliest use of 'off chance' to Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle in 1839. This origin would tend to link the use of the phrase to gambling slang.

On the other hand the phrase 'off instance', well the OED has 0 results for "off instance".

Exactly Sean. It doesn’t exist. It’s an invention.

[Lombro2]

Two more examples of wrong for the right reason and right for the wrong reason.

I’ll take the former. And I got lots of battery power on my phone this time and I’m not multi-tasking too much. So I’m not at a disadvantage like last time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two more examples of wrong for the right reason and right for the wrong reason.

I’ll take the former. And I got lots of battery power on my phone this time and I’m not multi-tasking too much. So I’m not at a disadvantage like last time.

Except that this thread is a classic example of how to get it wrong for all the wrong reasons.

[The Baron]

Just sitting here grinning at how perfectly natural and old the phrase “one off instance” really is.

Like I knew it felt right when I wrote it.. rhythmically, structurally, semantically.. but I went digging, and what did I find? Two beautiful examples from the 1880s, just sitting there, already doing the work.


1885, Journal of the Royal United Service Institution:
“…and not against one off chance which may never happen…”

1883, At Fault:
“…just that one off chance, they may be rolled over.”

Same phrase. Same cadence. Same meaning.
One rare, unpredictable, fleeting moment.. a chance that stands apart from the rest. A “one off chance.” You read it, and your brain just gets it. No friction. No footnotes needed.

So now let’s talk about “one off instance.”

The structure? Identical.
The meaning? Identical.
The vibe? Fully intact.

The moment you look at them side by side.. “one off chance”, “one off instance”.. it’s like linguistic twins. Same build, same mood, same role in the sentence.

They share the same skeleton.. “one” (a singular event), “off” (something apart, irregular), and a noun to carry the idea.. chance, instance, take your pick.

Both phrases point to that one blip, that rare flicker, that moment that doesn’t repeat.. and the language carries it without any confusion.

If someone in 1883 could say “one off chance” and mean a singular, almost never kind of possibility, then “one off instance” fits right in.. no stretch, no leap, no invention. It’s not new. It’s not reaching. It’s just English doing what English always does.. combining familiar parts into clear, expressive meaning.

And it’s kind of thrilling to see it. Not just that “one off instance” is valid.. but that the logic behind it has been alive for more than a century. No need to justify it. Just need to enjoy it.

So yes, I will keep using one off instance with even more joy now.. backed by the 1880s, blessed by rhythm, and completely at home in the language.

Because it works. Because it sings.
And because it’s always been waiting there, one off chance at a time.



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

So basically you are saying two different phrases are the same because it satisfies your argument, whatever that may be... ooookay.

[rjpalmer]

So basically you are saying two different phrases are the same because it satisfies your argument, whatever that may be... ooookay.

And notice that we aren't allowed the full citations, nor are we given images of the original text.

Considering the initial post on this thread, and its slapdash methodology, should anyone be confident these examples are even accurate?

Interestingly, if one punches these quotes into a Google search engine (using quotation marks) they both come back with only one 'hit': The Baron's post.

Why might that be? Let's wait and see the original images.

When the diary folks aren't playing Pin the Tale on Eddie, they're playing musical chairs or hide-and-seek.

[Iconoclast]

So basically you are saying two different phrases are the same because it satisfies your argument, whatever that may be... ooookay.

No, what The Baron is saying is that the syntax of 'one / off chance' (and, yes, of course 'off chance' has been common English for many a long year whereas 'off instance' has not and very probably never will be) is the same syntax to the brain as 'one / off instance' where the 'off' means a different notion to the 'off' in 'off chance'. When used with 'chance' - as in most commonly perhaps "On the off chance that ..." - it clearly means 'rare' or 'unlikely' or maybe 'less likely'. When used by Maybrick, it means 'abhorrent' or 'out-of-character'.

I would be the first to say that this would be an extremely unlikely choice of phraseology by Maybrick (or, indeed, anyone else) if it had been written carefully, perhaps even from earlier notes, but we are to believe that it was being written by someone in the moment, without pre-thought, and we cannot say here 137 years later that it was impossible that what he meant was 'an out-of-character moment which will not be repeated'. Perhaps he should have paused to cross it out and attempt a more conventional phraseology, but then again perhaps me auntie never did have that gonad transformation surgery and is still me auntie?

Instinctively, it reads like Maybrick is saying a 'one-off' instance which we have yet to show was used anywhere else in 1888 (we don't exactly have certainty that we have all of the written and spoken uses to hand anymore, mind, do we?); but we have this unnecessary tautology where he says, 'Never to be repeated'. Perhaps he was unaware of the tautology in 1888 and he really did mean to say 'one-off' instance, or perhaps a hoaxer in some as yet unknown year was similarly unaware of the tautology. Or perhaps one of them did and they just didn't care.

Or, perhaps, what we are seeing is the stream-of-consciousness thoughts of a man in 1888 expressing himself very badly and - by an extraordinary 'off chance' - appearing to use an expression which would not be formed again intentionally for about another 50+ years.

Like so many aspects of this strange case, nothing is what it seems (at least, not categorically).

[rjpalmer]

but we have this unnecessary tautology where he says, 'Never to be repeated'. Perhaps he was unaware of the tautology in 1888 and he really did mean to say 'one-off' instance, or perhaps a hoaxer in some as yet unknown year was similarly unaware of the tautology. Or perhaps one of them did and they just didn't care.

It's not a tautology, Tom. You and Caroline Brown have just convinced yourselves that it is.

The diarist is expressing two different thoughts. "I did a bad thing, but it was a one-off instance" and "it won't happen again in the future, I promise."

That's not a tautology unless Maybrick had a crystal ball.

Numerous examples of people using the phrase "one-off instance" in EXACTLY the same way in the 1980s and 1990s have already been posted. For instance:



The solicitor Ian Johnstone admits his client did a bad act, but states it was a "one-off instance" (because of course he would).

He then expresses a second thought: the same bad act won't be repeated. "It is not going to happen again."

But of course, Mr. Johnstone does not know this.

He does not have a crystal ball, nor can he see all the way to the end of his client's life and know that it WON'T be repeated, so there is truly no tautology.

The reprobate might repeat it next week or a dozen other times. Just as 'Maybrick' could potentially hit his wife again.

[Lombro2]

And we all know that the Victorians were very liberal with the "Blank-offs" because that's what Professor Orsam says and he was there.

[Lombro2]

Here's one for yous boys: