Casebook Examiner No. 4 (October 2010)

[mariab]

Completely agree with what Marc demonstrated about the different nuances of the usage of “quite“ in English. British English tends to often use “quite“ as an reinforcement of an adverb (such as “This chocolate cake is quite exquisite.“), while the Yankees say things such as “I have quite a bit of experience with this.“
What such usage of “quite“ has in commun both in England and America is that it's normally used only in spoken language. To express a position in such a way in the written word is a bit too colloquial and vague.

[Natalie Severn]

Quite so Mark! Our language is also extremely rich in homonyms eg homicide and murder!

[m_w_r]

As for Maria's observation that "quite unique" is often found in American English that only proves there are chowderheads on both sides of the Atlantic.

Hi Don,

But isn't this an interesting feature of the English language? "Quite" sometimes means "perfectly" or "entirely"; and sometimes it means "fairly" or "to some extent".

- This chocolate cake is quite exquisite.
- Your essay was quite good.

In the first usage, as a means of emphasising that something really is as unique as it claims to be, "quite" is quite the correct word to use.

There's a similar thing with the word "just". I've been wondering whether Elizabeth Prater's room - just over Mary Kelly's - might not have been "nearly" over Kelly's, but "exactly" or "immediately" over Kelly's. You know the sort of thing - "Live near her? You're quite right I live near her. My room's just over hers."

Regards,

Mark

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Just for the record, Melville Macnaghten was an indigo planter.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Inspector Andrews Revisited

Regarding Part Three of Roger Palmer"s sterling series on Inspector Andrews above entitled ,"Behind the Scenes in America" .Further to my previous post 49 here today,I forgot to add that my own understanding is that real enmity had developed between Charles Warren and James Monro and it arose because
a] Warren had blocked the appointment of Monro"s old friend from Bengal, tea planter Melville Macnaghten ,to become Chief Constable

and b]
Warren"s anger over the treatment of his friend,so called "Spy-Master General", Edward Jenkinson, who had built a network of agents *answerable to him personally causing huge rows with the Met and Monro in particular.Warren became intensely angry with Monro after he had manoeuvred the sacking of Jenkinson ,who had always had direct access to the Home Secretary in his role as "secret agent"[in Dublin Castle], treating the Home Office as his own second office. So Warren was more than irked when he witnessed Monro usurping Jenkinson"s "direct access " to the Home Secretary,in his parallel role of "secret service" agent .Warren wrote that spring of 1888 : The Head of the CID should devote his "time and energy" to legitimate work and not be burdened with the care and anxiety of duties which previously occupied the whole of the attention of an officer of undoubted experience and ability-a last ditch attempt by Warren before his resignation "rehabilitate his friend Jenkinson.
Finally,Roger,Michael Davitt did not fall out with Charles for long... after all he was Parnell"s advocate in the Special Commission and devoted himself to supporting him in every way he could in that role!
Best,
Norma
* I have often wondered whether Tumblety may have been among this "network of agents"!

[corey123]

Hello Lynn,

Yeah, I guess you could say that, however, one fact that makes me feel better is that I don't type like I did when I first joined, now that makes me cringe.

[lynn cates]

that's different

Hello Corey. Well, at least you don't say, "Different than."

Cheers.
LC

[corey123]

Hello Don, Lynn,

I have to say, I doubt I can count as high as the times I have used "alot" opposed to "a lot" on here. I also have develpoed a habit of saying "yea" instead of "yeah".

Im doomed.

[mariab]

To Supe:
Don, I hope you're well now.
Wow! I know “allot“ (as in “allotted space“), but I've never encountered “alot“ for “a lot“!
Mmm, does my hair smell like the ocean right now, and my face is covered in sea salt. Never gonna wash ever again. (Was that an Americanism, now?)

[lynn cates]

students

Hello Don. Thanks for that.

I was thinking of my students' variant "allot" as well as "alot."

You are right--Caz would never do that. That is why I can consign my poor old body to the Thames, being fully confident that, . . . , that, . . . , umm, would she do that just to see me make good on my word?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Lynn, I completely understand your and Don's position.
Lynn Cates wrote:
I cringe at some of my typos (discovered, alas, too late for rectification).
Story of my life.
The L.J. Palmer piece I'll read very soon (after re-reading the old Vanderlinden pieces and Palmer's parts 1-2 again). I'm in Greece for a week, and I have to tend to some social and (from tomorrow on) bureaucratic matters all day long.
(But today was swimming-in-the-Mediterranean-sea-day!)

[Natalie Severn]

Hope you are ok Don, sorry to hear you have been unwell,
All Good Wishes,
Norma

[Supe]

Lynn,

As an American, born and raised, I am actually most comfortable with our American version of England. As for Maria's observation that "quite unique" is often found in American English that only proves there are chowderheads on both sides of the Atlantic.

By the way, I came across a funny line in an English newspaperpaper yesterday: he [Fabio Capello] still speaks English worse than David Beckham — and that’s saying something.

Maria,

As for the reference to "allot," it may seem murky because Lynn, careful wordsmith that he is cannot even misspell on purpose. Allot, is of course a perfectly good word, but a frequent error now is to see "a lot" rendered as "alot." And that is something that Caz would never do.

Don.

[corey123]

Hello All. Well, I saw it but I remain incredulous. Don Souden actually used the phrase "quite unique." Degrees of uniqueness? Tsk. I think I shall cry.

What next? Ms. Morris, I suppose, will refer to "allot." In that case, I shall hurl myself into the Thames. Then there shall be one wing nut theorist fewer (not less) with which to contend (note my deft avoidance of ending a sentence with a preposition).

Content? Oh, kudos, of course.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

If only I was a fluent. I am sure many of you cringe when you read my posts.

By the way, thanks for editing that for me, it looks wounderful.

[Natalie Severn]

A fascinating edition of Casebook Examiner 4,so congratulations all round! I have so far only read two items, Jenny"s article on this year"s JtR conference in Whitechapel on September 25 which I enjoyed a lot and Roger Palmer"s eagerly awaited ,final in his series ,this concerning Inspector Andrews voyage in December 1888 to Canada.
The article,which is researched in depth and includes a wide range of historical information , focuses on the question of whether Scotland Yard in November/December 1888,had seriously turned its attention to the conman and charletan Francis Tumblety, as a Jack the Ripper suspect.
He draws our attention to those who would have been " in the know"and around at the time, such as Chief Inspector Littlechild at Scotland Yard in charge of "Special[Irish] Branch" -CID , Charles Warren Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at the time of the murders and Spymaster Robert Anderson, Assistant Commissioner CID [from August 31st 1888 ].He asks whether Warren and Anderson were actually far more interested in tracking the activities of the bail jumping fugitive,Francis Tumblety across the Atlantic, than they were in sending Inspector Andrews CID, on a straightforward extradition accompanying a fraudster named Barnet back to Canada,particularly as Inspector Andrews, Roger points out,was actually one of three inspectors sent from Scotland Yard in September 1888 to conduct enquiries into the Whitechapel Murders- according to ex Chief Inspector Walter Dew in his book " Caught Crippen". So was Inspector Andrews "extradition" task more of a cover for something of even more concern to some people in Scotland Yard than Jack the Ripper was in December 1888?
The article is very comprehensive, taking up and challenging the alternative scenario posed by Wolf Vanderlinden and Tim Riordan that Andrews may have had "other business " on his 1888 trip but that this business seems more likely to have been in connection with his CID Special[Irish] Branch work.Was Andrews possibly also required to help other detectives based in Canada to find evidence to use against Charles Stewart Parnell ,MP,in the Special Commission set up to inquire into Parnell"s libel suit against The Times?
Although Roger sets out his case in a very persuasive way ,pointing out the lengths both sides would go to regarding dishing up dirt on each other over the "Irish" question , for example the double agent Frank Millen working for New York Herald ---wasn"t he busy arranging "disinformation" stories of this kind to go in in North American Newspapers specifically to embarrass Scotland Yard about their informants or was he trying to obfuscate matters---throw in a bit about Tumblety being suspected of being JtR to one lot of North american papers while at the same time inferring to another lot of newsmen that Andrews was aiding other inspectors in Canada find dirt on Parnell?It may have sometimes got that complex---double agent work like Millen"s in New York! It certainly seems to me that there has to be more than a grain of truth in those stories especially as the news stories brought in other Scotland Yard names "working in North America" on "mystery errands" at the time---men such as Scotland Yard Inspectors Jarvis and Shore, even more significantly ,Private Detective Kirby [not from Scotland Yard] but employed by The Times quite specifically to obtain the help of Patrick Sheridan [Irish exile since the Phoenix Park murders] in Colorado also alluded to by newspapers in North America.And its Kirby who points us towards the name "Thompson" ie an old employee "informant" of Robert Anderson in his Dublin Castle days, James Thompson,re-employed with his wife Martha by Robert Anderson "on some inquiry"---in 1887! This ofcourse was at the very time Robert Anderson was knee deep in dishing the dirt on Parnell for who? Why The Times newspaper!Anderson along with Pigott helped create a very very bad press for Parnell.
So he needed his loyal old :informer James Thompson to help him out and James even went to Boulogne with wife Martha to meet Millen---!
[Both were then employed by The Times in 1888/89 to negotiate directly with double agent Millen in New York].
It is such a puzzle.
I realise too that it was in fact Charles Warren who was responsible for sending off Andrews on the "extradition mission" but I couldnt disagree with Roger more here when he asks why Warren would be interested in finding stuff out to discredit Parnell,because, Roger asserts ,Warren was only interested in "police matters"! You have to be joking Roger!
It was Warren who went down in history for causing one of the bloodiest "political" battles in English History,Bloody Sunday 1887 .It was Warren who sent in the troops for goodness sake,determined the chop off the head of any further unrest over unemployment!
Ofcourse he was a political animal,as ofcourse was the entrenched Unionist and spymaster, Robert Anderson himself [CID Special "Irish" Branch ] , the man who sent Andrews off the report on Tumblety.Possibly he was deeply interested in Tumblety but was it only because he suspected him of being Jack the Ripper? Might it not be the case that when Tumblety escaped to Boulogne,past hawk eyes Melville also based in Boulogne , Anderson knew already [Tumblety] was involved in more than having fun with rent boys?Tumblety was an Irish American who is on record as having sympathies for Parnell.What may Francis Tumblety have [also I]known[/I] about Irish American "activists"? Maybe Tumblety was ,as Littlechild later asserted, "a very likely suspect"- for Jack the Ripper , but the case isnt proven that he was Jack the Ripper, Roger,not by along way, nor is it yet proven that Andrews was more interested in bringing the ripper to book than helping gather evidence against Parnell---in my opinion.
But a really interesting and valuable article Roger,nevertheless,
Norma