Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Herlock Sholmes 56 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 1 hours ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (25 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (11 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (10 posts)
Rippercast: Oh, Dear Boss: The Ripper Had All The Luck - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Letters and Communications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #861  
Old 05-22-2017, 09:28 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
This is very interesting.

Firstly, the statement by detective officer Daniel Halse as recorded at the inquest was:

"The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing".

There we see the negation.

Secondly, the use of "men" is not "superfluous". It points to the gender described in the sentence. The sentence thereby contains not only a professional type but also a gender type.

This means that there are two types of human beings described in the test. These two types are also categories, i.e. groups where people belong.

One single person can of course belong to both of these categories.

But, when writing a sentence, if both categories are chosen, they are both important in the sence since they have different meanings. The meanings are very different in these two words even though the two categories can overlap and did (perfectly).

One therefore has to ask why the author pointed out the two specific categories in one sentence.

One also has to ask why the author pointed out the first category as not being a category of "men" to be blamed: Was it particular for that category?

This analysis shows that the "Ju**es" were NOT that type of men, they were not included in the category who would be blamed "for nothing".

Compare the GSG to the sentence "They died for nothing".

This means they died in vain.

But the Ju**es were NOT the men that would be blamed in vain.

Also, note the future tense: "WILL not be blamed". The act of blaming is directed towards the future. It is an act lying in the future, of which the author has knowledge at the moment of the writing of the text.

This type of man, from the group of Judges as Steve hypothesized earlier WILL not be blamed in vain. He WILL therefore act against the blame expected against him.

And naturally, the word "men" points to one category of men who are different from another category of men:

the men that will be blamed without doing anything about it.

Finally, "for nothing" also means "without having done anything to deserve it". This meaning is of course connected to "blamed".

So: they are not the type of men that will be blamed in the future without having done anything to deserve it and without doing anything about it.

Pierre


Pierre

Do I sense a connection between this thread beingg reopened and the knowing thread? Or am I seeing something which is not there?

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #862  
Old 05-22-2017, 10:12 AM
Flower and Dean Flower and Dean is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
This analysis shows that the "Ju**es" were NOT that type of men, they were not included in the category who would be blamed "for nothing".

Compare the GSG to the sentence "They died for nothing".

This means they died in vain.

But the Ju**es were NOT the men that would be blamed in vain.
There are multiple versions of the GSG. Assuming that the one you're working with was the correct one, there could still be more than one way to interpret it.

We read "nothing" in at least two different ways.

"The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed [in vain]" -- they won't be blamed for something they didn't do, i.e. they didn't do anything but will be blamed.

or

"The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed [in vain]" -- they won't be blamed for something they didn't do, i.e. they did do something to be blamed for.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #863  
Old 05-22-2017, 10:55 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Pierre

Do I sense a connection between this thread beingg reopened and the knowing thread? Or am I seeing something which is not there?

Steve
Hi Steve,

well, I dont know what you mean. What is it that you think you see?

Cheers, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #864  
Old 05-22-2017, 10:57 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower and Dean View Post
There are multiple versions of the GSG. Assuming that the one you're working with was the correct one, there could still be more than one way to interpret it.

We read "nothing" in at least two different ways.

"The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed [in vain]" -- they won't be blamed for something they didn't do, i.e. they didn't do anything but will be blamed.

or

"The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed [in vain]" -- they won't be blamed for something they didn't do, i.e. they did do something to be blamed for.
But the source I use is the most reliable, you see. It is first and it is produced by the authorities at the inquest.

Yes, the first and second interpretation is also correct.

Cheers, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 05-22-2017 at 11:00 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #865  
Old 05-22-2017, 11:21 AM
Flower and Dean Flower and Dean is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
But the source I use is the most reliable, you see. It is first and it is produced by the authorities at the inquest.
Long's version was produced at the inquest too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Yes, the first and second interpretation is also correct.
I know, which is why I'm confused as to what you're trying to prove here. Even discarding all alternate versions we still have more than one way to interpret what was written, and that's not even counting the intention of whoever wrote it (were they lying? telling the truth? were they even talking about the Ripper?) which gives us even more possible interpretations.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #866  
Old 05-22-2017, 11:52 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower and Dean View Post
Long's version was produced at the inquest too.



I know, which is why I'm confused as to what you're trying to prove here. Even discarding all alternate versions we still have more than one way to interpret what was written, and that's not even counting the intention of whoever wrote it (were they lying? telling the truth? were they even talking about the Ripper?) which gives us even more possible interpretations.
Hi
Pierre also thinks that Juwes was actually judges and mis read.

ive heard from an expert on cockney that it should be read as-the jews wont take the blame for anything.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #867  
Old 05-22-2017, 11:55 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Flower and Dean;415773]

Quote:
Long's version was produced at the inquest too.
Yes, but Halse said he had the "exact spelling".

Quote:
I know, which is why I'm confused as to what you're trying to prove here. Even discarding all alternate versions we still have more than one way to interpret what was written, and that's not even counting the intention of whoever wrote it (were they lying? telling the truth? were they even talking about the Ripper?) which gives us even more possible interpretations.
I am not trying to prove anything at all. Im not working in a court room. I am an historian and do history.

Cheers, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #868  
Old 05-22-2017, 12:00 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi
Pierre also thinks that Juwes was actually judges and mis read.

ive heard from an expert on cockney that it should be read as-the jews wont take the blame for anything.
Hi Abby,

But it was not an expert on cockney who wrote it you see.

Cheers, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #869  
Old 05-22-2017, 01:01 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
But it was not an expert on cockney who wrote it you see.
Oh my dear boy, I feel I should point out to you that no-one knows who actually wrote it.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #870  
Old 05-22-2017, 01:09 PM
Flower and Dean Flower and Dean is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi
Pierre also thinks that Juwes was actually judges and mis read.

ive heard from an expert on cockney that it should be read as-the jews wont take the blame for anything.
I've seen someone posting that before I joined, when I was just a lurker. So that was Pierre! Anyway, that doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
I am not trying to prove anything at all. Im not working in a court room. I am an historian and do history.

Cheers, Pierre
Right, but what did you want to accomplish with your post? That's what I'm trying to figure out. It sounded as though you were trying to make a point but I don't know what it is.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.