Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[mariab]

I agree with all of you (esp. with Supe/Don), and Simon really cracked me up (with the reference to the shop selling “Cd's/video's“!! )
If you also throw in Aussie English and South African English, then the picture is complete! (Next week I have to write a paper for presentation in South Africa, and I'm trying to get in the vibe, but the only South African slang I'm familiar with is for food and drink, or surf lingo, which is not gonna cut it.)
By the by I just got Examiner 2, so I know what I'll be reading much later tonight...
Thank you all and kind regards,
Maria

[Supe]

There is no debate: it should have been a stationery store in either American or British English. But if that was all that was found wanting (and please don't go looking for more) in an essay of more than 28,000 words that probably speaks well for the writer and the editors.

Having edited articles written in both American and British English for many years now, the differences between them in terms of punctuation, spelling and vocabulary are many but easily handled. One surprising difference I have noticed, though, is that Brits make no differentation between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, setting off both with the word which.

Anyway, Maria raised some interesting questions in her post that go beyond "English as she is wrote" on either side of the Atlantic and I hope that when she gets to reading Casebook Examiner some of them will be answered.

Don.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

There's a store near me which sells CD's and Video's.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

spelling/usage

Hello Maria.

"But I recall that in the States when paper selling shops advertise their selling products on the door etc., normally it says “stationary“ with an “a“."

Doubtless true. Of course, I have seen American shops with signs reading, "Express lane: 15 items or less."

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Ha ha ha, good one!
This is probably the only meaning of the word “stationary“ any of us would be using in texts/books, because, let's be real, who ever uses the word “stationary“ as in “paper“ or “envelope“ in writing? We write on it, but not about it! (I know, completely lame joke... )
Kind regards,
Maria

[Simon Wood]

Hi Maria,

Here's an absurd story from my childhood about a man who goes into a stationers. He walks up to the clerk at the counter and says, "Are you the stationary manager."

"No," says the clerk, "I often hop around on one leg."

Hope it helps.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

Gee, I don't know! I recall that the people at The University of Chicago Press (where I'm supposed to prepare a manuscript, but not before 3-4 years, since the original book in German won't be out before 2011, and then I'll have to do the initial translation into American English myself, before someone polishes it, which will be a hell of a lot of work for both of us) have been using the spelling “stationary“, but possibly the chief Editor at the UofC Press (who's a real erudite in spelling) uses the correct spelling, “stationery“. I have xeroxed parts of The UofC Press Manual here, but mostly for hyphenation (which is my BIGGEST problem between British English and American English, and I'm at the point where I don't hyphenate anymore in English when submitting texts, let the editor do it themselves, correctly!), so this is not going to help. But I recall that in the States when paper selling shops advertise their selling products on the door etc., normally it says “stationary“ with an “a“.
It might be one of these cases where a wrong spelling has established itself and become part of the “official“ language (as language is fluid, and often evolves beyond our control). For instance, I don't know if the Europeans among you are familiar with the Italian soft sandwiches called panino in singular, panini in plural. Well, here in France (where it's a popular brand of sandwich, sold on the street etc.) it's been erroneously established to call them panini also in singular, so if I go and ask for a panino, the seller is going to look at me weird and correct me! It used to irritate the hell out of me, but now I simply order a panini like everybody else...
So much for linguistics...
Thank you all and best regards,
Maria

[caz]

Hello Maria. I am bilingual, being fluent in both English and American. Caz is right--this is an instance in which the correct spellings in both languages coincide.

Perhaps this will be of benefit:

http://dictionary1.classic.reference.com/help/faq/language/d09.html

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn. I was doubting myself there for a while (only happens about a hundred times a day ).

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

spelling

Hello Maria. I am bilingual, being fluent in both English and American. Caz is right--this is an instance in which the correct spellings in both languages coincide.

Perhaps this will be of benefit:

http://dictionary1.classic.reference.com/help/faq/language/d09.html

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Plus I have to add: Caz, I think that in American-English it's well-established that the official spelling is “stationary“ with an “a“.

Really, Maria? If so it's horrible, and I may have to reconsider proofreading anything written by Americans.

My latest Chambers shows US spellings and usage, 'official' or otherwise, and there's no sign in there that stationary would be acceptable anywhere for what a stationer sells, ie stationery - although the Latin root is obviously the same.

Love,

PedantiCaz
X

[mariab]

Le Grand as a viable suspect

(I'm a newbie.) I've just suscribed to Examiner and issue no. 2 hasn't reached me yet, so I obviously haven't read Mr. Wescott's fascinating and clearly well-researched article on Le Grand (or the article on Tumblety and so on) YET, but after going through this thread I couldn't resist commenting. First of all, I am completely keen to consider Le Grand as one of the most strong suspects, although not THE most strong one. Considering him as a suspect would possibly (but not necessarily) imply 2 perpetrators, and I can't wait to read what Mr. Wescott has to say about “Pipeman“ and “Broad Shoulders“ in his article. (Or possibly this has been addressed in Examiner no. 1, which I also intend to order as a back issue.) I would also agree that with Le Grand as a suspect we would have to consider Martha Tabram and Emma Smith as early victims. And I very much hope that more information about the police's suspicions of Le Grand would be contained in the classified Special Branch ledgers which discuss the Whitechapel murders. Any idea of when these sources would be available?
The only problem I'd have with Le Grand as a prime suspect is that I somehow feel that he “psychologically“ doesn't “profile“ as my “gut feeling“ (for what it's worth) says that the perpetrator of the Ripper crimes would. Not that I really, fully adhere to the so-called “science“ of profiling, but profiling certainly has its merits as an investigative methodology. I recall that someone on this thread commented on the FBI having needed 26 years to catch the “Green River killer“, but might I remind you that the perp had been “profiled“ right, just incidentally not caught? And, significantly, Ridgwater had been suspected and questioned, but let go by the investigators due to lack of evidence. Does this ring any bells as of the Ripper case?
My own favorite suspect would have to be Barnett (and I'm sure that everybody will probably start screaming on me on this ) or someone other local who appeared quite and inconspicuous. (I totally agree with Mr. Baron in his imagining the perp as a “Jeffrey Dahmer“ type.) With such a suspect I would expect Anni Milwood to be the first documented victim.
Obviously I can't wait to read the actual article and the entire Examiner issue, and I'll probably have a lot of questions to the authors pertaining to details.
Either than that I have to say I was entertained (which is a nice way to say: annoyed!) by the animosity of some of the debate, esp. by Mr. Trevor, who, if I'm not mistaken in my assumption, ludicrously considers Feigenbaum as his prime suspect?!!
Plus I have to add: Caz, I think that in American-English it's well-established that the official spelling is “stationary“ with an “a“.
And it's pronounced La-wen-de as in “Love-under“ – no phonetics being available in this thread. (My Polish hardly qualifies as existant, but I've spent a month researching in Krakow a few years ago, and I have Polish colleagues and friends.)
Again, thanks so much for a fascinating debate on this thread, and I'm looking forward to reading the articles.
Best regards,
Maria

[Phil Carter]

Humanum Errare Est

Hi Caz. I appreciate what you're saying and in hindsight (and after looking at my article again) I'm more inclined now to agree with you and Phil Carter regarding how I handled the 'Hall's prime duty' part.

Hello Tom,

Many is the time I look back on words I once wrote and think... if only...

Most magnaminous of you.

Humanum Errare Est.

best wishes

Phil

[caz]

P.S. I have no idea what you mean about forcing your services on anyone. I don't believe any one has said that.

Don't worry, Tom - it's a Brit etiquette thing. The situation is in the process of being resolved.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Caz. I appreciate what you're saying and in hindsight (and after looking at my article again) I'm more inclined now to agree with you and Phil Carter regarding how I handled the 'Hall's prime duty' part. Due to space constraints and my intention to minimalize minutia, I did not include all the testimony from the 1889 trial that would have cemented my points regarding Hall mentioning the cleaning of knives to make Le Grand sweat. Since more than one person have seen fit to comment, then of course when it comes time to write this part of my book I'll keep that in mind and word it more fully and carefully.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I have no idea what you mean about forcing your services on anyone. I don't believe any one has said that.

[caz]

I'm surprised to see this from someone who has written a book. The writer's job is to become familiar with the material and where necessary interpret it for his readers. This is precisely what I did, and I imposed no interpretations upon it that weren't suggested by the evidence. Yes, you knew how to spell 'stationery' and I didn't. Congrats, you're like 25 years older than me and weren't raised in Oklahoma. Your gift is grammar, mine is instinct, which tends to be proved right more often than not, in case anyone has been keeping score. I'm more than willing to change my mind or admit where I was wrong, but I see absolutely no reason to do so in the instance of Hall's testimony.

In fact, I've figured out who wrote the Pall Mall Gazette letter about Le Grand, and it wasn't who I suggested in my essay.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You completely missed my point, Tom.

Of course the writer is allowed to interpret his material as he sees fit (although the book wot I wrote doesn't attempt to do that, it just presents the material and lets the reader decide if he can reach any sound conclusions from it).

I'm not even saying your interpretations are not the right ones. I'm merely saying that it is not within the writer's power to impose his own interpretation on his readers, even if he sees it as the only obvious one. Beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder and there's nothing you can do about it if your material isn't considered beautiful enough by your readers, no matter how you present or interpret it. You can lead readers to your theory - and it's a great one in my view - but you can't make them think like you do about it.

Oh and if Don wants me, he knows where to find me. Contrary to what some people think, I'm not one to blow my own trumpet or force my 'services' on anyone.

Love,

Caz
X