Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • drstrange169
    replied
    Sam Flynn went market
    Joshua Rogan stayed home
    Jeff Hamm had roast beef
    c.d. had none
    And Micheal W Richards went wee, wee, wee all the way home!


    Click image for larger version

Name:	51N6HyOE9ML._AC_.jpg
Views:	89
Size:	68.9 KB
ID:	727685

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    You are applying today's use of the word to Victorian language, and that is a common mistake. In Victorian "speak", the obvious intention is that he fled with haste, not that he wet himself.

    Maybe he wet himself as he fled. There you go. Kill two birds with one stone.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >> Secondary or tertiary results are by definition, not "the obvious".<<

    They are only secondary or tertiary to those that did not know the meaning of the word as used in Victorian times, hence the obvious.
    You presume that people always use the correct word, (common contemporary usage/vernacular), each time they speak, and that's incorrect for any historical period.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >> Secondary or tertiary results are by definition, not "the obvious".<<

    They are only secondary or tertiary to those that did not know the meaning of the word as used in Victorian times, hence the obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    I do realize that common speak in Victorian times is often quite different from todays vernacular Jeff. I also just realized that perhaps we've wet/dry trousers enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    There is always face value ready to be taken into account Sam, My interpretation is that he used the phrase based on its most obvious and primary definition. The act would be highly consistent with someone in sudden fear of their life, and not an uncommon occurrence either. People can be incontinent when laughing, scared, a myriad of causes actually.
    You are applying today's use of the word to Victorian language, and that is a common mistake. In Victorian "speak", the obvious intention is that he fled with haste, not that he wet himself.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Fnar fnar!
    ​​​​​​https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haa...lmes-1.5231046

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Another funny, but similar outdated term is ejaculated. As in to utter suddenly, as in surprise. So you could say that BS man ejaculated, and caused Schwartz to be incontinent!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Secondary or tertiary results are by definition, not "the obvious".
    Obvious to me, and quite evidently some others here, too. Without even looking it up, and from first reading, I have always understood "he fled incontinently" to mean that Schwartz ran like a rat up a drainpipe to get away from the scene. I have never, ever taken it to mean that he wet himself as he ran away.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    Thank you Gareth for pointing out the obvious.
    Secondary or tertiary results are by definition, not "the obvious".

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Yes it does, to anyone who understands that particular usage of the word. To "flee incontinently" is to skedaddle away from someone/thing by any means that you can - i.e. urgently, panicky, and with no regard for elegance or technique.

    Compare this precisely equivalent use of the same adjective: "he blathered incontinently"; meaning "he poured out an incoherent and uncontrolled stream of words", not "he pissed himself as he spoke".
    There is always face value ready to be taken into account Sam, My interpretation is that he used the phrase based on its most obvious and primary definition. The act would be highly consistent with someone in sudden fear of their life, and not an uncommon occurrence either. People can be incontinent when laughing, scared, a myriad of causes actually.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    There you go, yes. I find it fascinating to look up these words where the common meanings have changed, and we have several cases of this throughout the Ripper murders.
    Indeed, Jon. It can be a bit of a minefield!

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    Thank you Gareth for pointing out the obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    This lack of restraint translates into a lack of delay, as incontinently is defined in the OED as "Straightaway, at once, immediately", and its corresponding adverb incontinent is defined as "In continuous time, without any interval; Immediate".
    There you go, yes. I find it fascinating to look up these words where the common meanings have changed, and we have several cases of this throughout the Ripper murders.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    "Incontinent" also means "lacking self-restraint; uncontrolled", which is certainly what was meant in the case of Schwartz fleeing from the scene.
    Yes, but in reference to Schwartz, Websters 1886 also notes that when used as an adverb 'Incontenently' meant immediately, or instantly.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X