|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4860
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:32 pm: | 
|
Here you go, Howard.
Sorry it's a bit untidy. I had to chop the bottom bits off then stick them on again.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2057
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
Many thanks Robert.
I wonder who bid for it in the August of 1888, if anyone?
It's either a very curious coincidence, or the spelling was not so obscure after all, and any old - or young - graffiti artist could have used it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 228
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Well , lets look at it logically. I think its easy enough to spell ' Jews ' correctly , so to spell it as ' Juwes ' implies that the writer is trying to convey some message to the reader.
I just don't buy the spelling mistake theory. The spelling of the word as ' Jews ' would surely be a familiar one to any denizen of the East End , due to it appearing in newspapers as well as in the Bible.
Then theres the piece of apron which has to be put down to coincidence of it being there if the Graffiti is not a message from the Ripper.
Is there any theory that would fit with a medieval spelling of the word ? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4864
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
None that I can think of, Simon.
Of the suspects, I suppose it points very vaguely to Druitt, if anyone.
Re subjectivity of spelling, the chronicle has "Jewes" on the same page as "Juwes."
Robert |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 229
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
JK Stephen was my first thought Robert ! |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4866
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
JK Stephen. Simon, it's a sure thing that David O'Flaherty will pop up now.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 854
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Hi Simon,
Well, to a fully educated and literate native English speaker, Jews is pretty easy to spell, yes. But to someone less literate, "Juwes" would be a logical attempt. It has an OO sound, not an EE sound, so they'd want to use the U because that's normally the OO, and the E at the end makes the U long and OOey instead of short and UH-esque.
I personally don't think it's at all logical to assume there had to be some special meaning behind the incorrect spelling. People make spelling mistakes all the time. Go back to the East End of London in 1888 and I would think the spelling errors would be more frequent, not less. I mean, pick a modern equivalent, like perhaps inner city Chicago or urban Miami and go check out graffiti there. I know if some gangbanger left graffiti today that said the cops were a bunch of "loosers" I think it'd be fair to say that it's not some encoded meaning derived from the loose morals of local law enforcement, a reference to some nickname that will be used by members of a Thai cult in 2074 AD, excerpts from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, British slang for people who make messes while they're in the loo, or whatever.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 861
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
LARRY:
I am kicking myself in the butt right now for not experimenting with this form of the word that you have kindly placated....and believe me,I spent a considerable amount of time on the GSG in an old experiment earlier this year. In one post,you've made me [ at least ] rethink how the GSG's famous second word was written. I personally appreciate your post very much,Mr.Larry. While other intrepid and interested parties have substituted other words [ see Inaki's use of IWES ] to see if they were plausible, this simple rewriting and not replacement made me slap my forehead at the obvious possibility that it wasn't written like I thought it should have been written. Live and learn, Larry and today I did. Thanks a lot !
Despite there being 6 variations [ not including Stephenson's in this instance ] of the second word, there are really only two that we can use for comparitive purposes from actual witnesses...that being Juwes and Juews. The others came from recollections, some years after the night of September 30th.
I looked at the word and immediately saw what PC Long said was there...Juews. Anyone else? Did anyone else see "Juwes" first?
Dan is correct about how words contained within graffiti are commonly misspelled. Names and gangs may get spelled correctly,but lets face it...although there are creative wall writers, most are bottom feeders in the world of spelink..uh..spelling.
C.D.
You've got some good counterarguments to the GSG for sure. What you may have forgotten is that it rained the night of the Double Event. Writing a message with chalk on a wet wall would result in a less than legible interpretation.
I don't know if this will make any difference if you feel for certain that the GSG was not written by the Ripper...but you may want to take it into consideration if there is the slightest doubt due to the location of the GSG...and the apron piece.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2066
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Hi Simon,
Not only was the writing intended to have a meaning , it was also meant to be understood by someone - even if that someone had to have specialist knowledge to understand the meaning. Else why write the message on a wall ?
Well, if we assume the message was written by a serial killer, the whole thing can be dropped in the 'irrational' basket, along with taking a kidney out of a woman he's just met and murdered. So even if Jack meant the words to be understood by his audience, there's no guarantee the message would travel from an irrational mind to a rational one.
But by the same token, there's no guarantee that Jack wanted the message to be understood. Conversely, it could have been a private joke - one that only he was supposed to get, while his audience was dancing to his discordant tune and falling over.
Whoever wrote that message in a good schoolboy hand brought chalk with him for the purpose and, if the word was really spelled 'Juwes', I think that may have been deliberate too - a kind of "No one will ever know just how clever I am" statement, chalked by someone who had seen that spelling before and absorbed it gleefully.
Robert, you don't know what you started here! But I think it may be one of the best new snippets of information in a long while. Who'd have thunk it - 'Juwes' in a centuries-old book on the customs of London, auctioned in August 1888, and 'Juwes' seen on a wall a few weeks later.
I'd have put 'Joos' if I hadn't seen it spelled otherwise.
Love,
Caz
X |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4870
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
Glad it's been of interest, Caz.
My thanks to Debra Arif for putting me onto that site in the first place.
Robert |
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 72
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
Didn't I say you or AP would squeeze something interesting out of it...well done!!!
Debra |
Ben Holme
Police Constable
Username: Benh
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 8:27 pm: |
|
I'm in agreement with Dan, here.
Simon, why don't you buy the "spelling mistake theory"? Is it difficult to fathom that an uneducated East-Ender may not be fully conversant with the correct spelling of the word "Jews"? |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Howard,
Sorry, but your reference to the rain that night goes right by me. I am just not sure what point you are trying to make. Please elaborate. Thanks.
I know from your previous posts that the GSG is a big issue for you. My own feeling is that the writing and the apron being found together was simply a coincidence. I am trying to put myself in Jack's shoes that night. If I had blood on me and a pocket full of organs and I knew the police were out looking for me, the last thing I would do would be to stop (if even for a few seconds) to write a message on a wall. Keep in mind that this was not a now or never situation for Jack if he really wanted to communicate with the police. Why not wait till the next day or a few days after to do so? Get somewhere safe first.
I can only see two reasons for writing a message. One would be to put the police on a false trail, the other would be to brag about what he had done. The cryptic message that we are discussing appears to do neither. And if the message did come from Jack, why not follow up with another message at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder? Finally, I would think that Jack's ego would have been sky high having just killed two women on the same night. I would expect a message along the lines of "Next time it will be three." But, nothing seems to be certain in Ripperolgy and I will admit that the apron and message together is quite a coincidence but in my mind still a coincidence all the same.
P.S. Howard, you never did respond to a previous post of mine. Are you sure that Richard Simmons is gay? How could I have missed that?
c.d. |
LARRY
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
c.d. thanks for your comments (I also think the GSG thread has gone a bit too far with all the Masonic and Medieval connotations)
Howard,I read your excellent research in 'Ripperologist'.
I wrote my name with a bit of chalk on the wall of the passageway of my mums house when I was 10... and its still there ! though admittedly faded (I'm 42 now)despite all the years of rain it hasn't gone.
For me the GSG is akin to somebody leaving a KFC box beside a piece of writing that says 'Killroy 'woz 'ere- did the eater write it, or did the writer eat it. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 866
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
c.d.
Well, the GSG isn't a big "issue" for me,but its a part of the Case that I feel,as well as other more experienced Ripperologists, should not be dismissed so easily or taken so casually as a random graffiti..
Believe me,I don't "need" it to be an actual bit of evidence at all. It doesn't "need" to be a fact for me because I don't have an agenda based upon its factuality. I only "defend" its possible relevance because it is interesting to me. Superior Ripperologists to me like Mr. Evans [ for one prominent example ] don't believe in the GSG as a clue. Therefore,when big guns like Mr. Evans dismiss it, the opposing views that some may have often won't get brought up out of the respect to the "rank" Mr. Evans,among other well-versed Ripperologists, have [ and have earned ] in the field. This is natural. However,the recent discovery by Robert Charles Linford of a reference to an actual use of the word "Juwes" [ Arnold's Chronicles....see the "Juwes or Juives" thread..] proves that there was a written,documented utilization of that word for Jews. Up until recently,we have been looking high and low...in Masonry textbooks...religious tomes..and other areas and came up short. Now,Robert has shown that there was a reference,albeit from a Medieval-times book. It isn't over until its over,c.d., as Yogi Berra once said.
The reference to rain is relevant,c.d.,if you consider that Halse commented on the freshness of the GSG...and that rain that had fallen would have "aged" any previously written graffiti on the outside of the Wentworth...and made it difficult to placate a message on the walls during or right after a rainfall.
I saw the Simmons joke before. Your guess is as good as mine as to which way the little guy swings.
Larry....Thanks for the nice remarks. When I conducted those tests at work,it was only to provide the mechanics and time involved. Neil Bell made very good points against the relevance in a subsequent Ripperologist which deserve a re-reading as well. In the final analysis,Larry, like I said..it doesn't "matter" that it is a clue to me. The only thing that matters is that the GSG and the fabled second word remain open to questioning. Robert Charles has done just that with his recent findings on the "Juwes".
I see you already tried out a proto-GSG on Mama's wall...was the wall exposed to rain and the elements or was it inside? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Debra is right, Robert, first class stuff.
Sad to say I have not yet had time to exploit the rich pickings that Debra threw our way, but the winter comes and then I should be able to travel that way.
I must say that I do enjoy this situation whereby using normal research tools one is able to totally redress some old misconceptions.
Juwes and Lipski.
Murder and mutilation.
I crow.
And fly. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4877
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
AP, when you go on it don't bother searching for Cutbush. I think Debra's squeezed that one bone dry!
Robert |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 751
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 5:00 am: |
|
I really do think we are clutching at straws re the use of the spelling "Juwes" in a chronicle that must have been known to the smallest circle of people - probably is even today!!
Even then I cannot see why anyone would wish to "quote" such an obscure spelling as was done by whomever wrote the graffito. Unless an academic or a librarian seeking to communicate to another such, I cannot see ny sense in it - and how many academics or librarians were likely to be wandering the streets of Whitechapel?
No - Occam would be clear - this is a simple case of a phonetic mis-spelling of a common word by a semi-literate local.
Sorry but I don't buy the convoluted manuscript idea at all.
Phil |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 238
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
" No - Occam would be clear - this is a simple case of a phonetic mis-spelling of a common word by a semi-literate local."
Phil , you state this as if its a fact ! Yet this doesn't agree with Occam's theory at all because you are making an assumption that the word was spelled wrongly by some illiterate : to reduce assumptions to a minimum , you would have to accept the word actually was ' Juwes '.
Just a coincidence that the piece of apron was found by the Graffiti as well , was it ? |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Howard,
Thanks for your response. When I stated that the GSG was a big "issue" for you I simply meant that I knew that you had studied it closely and had debated it in a number of posts that I had read. I hope that you didn't take it any other way.
Rather than argue chalk, rain, time etc.,I will try to put my argument on a more abstract plane. If anyone accepts the idea that none of the Ripper letters were authentic but believes that Jack was the author of the GSC, then we are left with the conclusion that the one single time that Jack chose to communicate in this case was when he was escaping a murder scene, knew he was being pursued, probably had some blood on him and most likely was carrying the organs of the woman that he had just killed. It then occurrs to him that this would be a really great time to stop and write what is to us a very cryptic message. That just doesn't make sense to me.
As for our friend Richard Simmons, I was being quite facetious. I have a pretty good idea as to which team he plays for but I will keep it to myself.
c.d. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 879
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
C.D.
I know how you meant it,old bean..I took it the right way...but thanks for clarifying it.
There are a lot of things involved with the GSG that do not make sense and you have correctly brought out the issues that I think don't make sense either.
To believe in the GSG,we more or less have to:
** Believe that he either had chalk on his person or in finding chalk,spontaneously came up with a message in a fairly well lit area of Goulston Street....an unnecessary risk,considering the risk he had just taken with Eddowes. Almost stupid on his part...
** Accept a weirdly written graffiti that by its wording,could have been instrumental in the Police on the spot thinking more into it than required.. This graffiti,to me,could have been hurried,if by the Ripper. Other than that...its a very unusually worded statement..No epithets..almost like writing a passage out of a book..and intended for the authorities,as no one else could be expected to "understand" it,without giving it special attention.
**Believe that the proximity of the apron and the message was no accident.
I'm sure there are other reasons that other folks have as well..
..yeah,Richie plays for the other team,C.D...no doubt about it. In fact,he's a captain. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Howard,
Glad to hear that we were in sync with my post.
I recall that you did a number of experiments for your GSG article in Ripperologist. My memory of the details is a bit fuzzy. Did you try writing with the type of chalk that a tailor would use and did you try writing in the dark? If so, what were the results?
...Richie as captain? Yeah, I think you nailed that one. Pinch hitter at the very least. Still, overweight middle age ladies seem to like him. Switch hitter perhaps? Boy that's not a picture that I want to entertain. If only everybody weren't so damn sweaty from all those oldies. Oy!
c.d. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 882
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Hey C.D. !
I'm glad you asked these two questions about that experiment. I think others should try the test themselves to get the hands-on experience.
First off, no sir, I did NOT use tailoring chalk OR billiard chalk [ which,as you know is cube shaped and very hard ]. The reason I mentioned the potential difficulty of using tailoring chalk,is that the surface of a standard brick is obviously hard, and maybe too hard for a legible message to be made without breaking the tip of the tailoring chalk off. Mr. Begg provided a picture of tailoring chalk in that article,but I didn't use one,C.D.
Thats why [ and I should have explained why in the article] that perhaps someone else could try the experiment with tailoring chalk, It is very possible that tailoring chalk was used. It wouldn't be a "setback" to find out my opinion was incorrect. In fact, it would be a good thing. I did,however,use two different types of cylindrical chalk and one purposedly sharpened to a rounded edge like a tailoring chalk...but not an actual tailoring chalk..It broke when I used it, but then again...it wasn't an actual tailor's chalk.
I didn't write the message in the dark and neither do I think the Ripper [ if he was the author ] as well. I believe that there was enough light for him to be able to write the message for two reasons.
1. The description of the message indicates [to me ] that it was a fluid writing and not haphazardly written over mortar and zig-zagging between brick levels.
2. The lighting at the corner of New Goulston Street,Wentworth Ave. and Goulston Street itself as well as some ambient light probably existed to the degree that it wasn't written totally "in the dark" as in pitch black darkness.
Thanks for asking...
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Howard,
A very informative response and much appreciated. From your experiments, would you conclude that writing a legible message on the brick surface would be almost impossible in the dark? The point that I am trying to get at is that any ambient light sufficient enough for Jack to write by could also be bright enough for him to be seen and his description passed along to the police.
I believe it was Sugden who said that anti-Jewish graffitti was not uncommon in the area. We are presented with a message that obviously(?)has something to do with Jews however the word is spelled. If the message had read "Long live Queen "Viktoria", would we still be so eager to make a connection to the apron and would we be asking ourselves over 100 years later just what the hell "Viktoria" means?
c.d. |
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:13 am: |
|
Dear Howard,
You suggest some intrigueing experiments. The Four Elements of Wind, Fire, Water, & Earth... in this instance BRICK! I must point out the various texture of different Victorian brick products. From VERY ROUGH to PORCELAIN FACED!
To quote Ol'Drac: We will need every ingenuity!
Rosey :-) |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 886
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Hey C.D.
Thanks for the nice comments..
First of all you ask:
"would you conclude that writing a legible message on the brick surface would be almost impossible in the dark?"
Not impossible C.D....if a person was to write a message on brick in complete darkness [ which is another question altogether..], a person could write a legible message using his other hand to guide him while he wrote with his "writing hand"....especially if he was lefthanded,then it would not be a problem at all. Remember that we read from left to right....but if he was not a southpaw,then it could still be done with a little more difficulty.
Bricks are pretty uniform in size and a person could concievably gauge when to stop and carry the balance of his message to the next brick.
With all due respect to Mr. Sugden [ who,unless he has changed his mind,did believe that the GSG was valid...page 256 of his book, The Complete JTR..] and those others who state that there were other graffiti present in the area [ and in all honesty,how the heck could you and I argue one way or the other? ]...the fact is that this graffiti stood out to the police. Perhaps, as I theorize, the rain and the convoluted message [ its not convoluted to some in all fairness...its a double negative or East End-speak..],encouraged the police to feel it was of a higher importance than it may really have been.
Its not so much the second word [ which is another aspect all in itself..], its the message itself,C.D. I think you are correct that whatever message had been discovered above the apron would have been scrutinized as we do today.
...and, no offense,we are stuck with what was found above the apron,not a erzatz message. there's really no way we can judge what the police would have done with a modern-made up message.
Me? I wish the damned thing said.."I did it. I live at *** Whitechapel Road...come and get me."
Dear Rosey...
The types of brickface used by building owners back then are probably the same as the type [ read: less expensive and coarse face ] we use now. But thanks for that information. I appreciate it !
Beer
The 5th Element... |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2902
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Sam Hudson, writing in 1888 - therefore untarnished by time - stated quite emphatically that the Jews of the East-End used the word 'Juwes' rather than 'Jews' because of the curious pidgin Yiddish they spoke.
I'm beginning to like this guy, he's good for a few fights. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 643
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Odd that the police who worked there wouldn't have known that or that, after the text was released, one of these people using this term wouldn't have told them about it. What would have been the big secret?
Stan |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Isn't "untarnished by time" just another way of saying "out of the loop and extremely unreliable" in this instance? I don't think the word of some guy slapping a booklet together in record time for sale in Philadelphia is a reliable source on Jewish words in London, especially when it's out of step with all other sources.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2907
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 2:47 am: |
|
Maybe, Dan.
The volume certainly has immediacy.
I like the guy's work. I know he makes mistakes but most of his data and research is sound.
Like he calls Eddowes, Kelly and so forth, but hey the guy was right there in 1888 and many thought at the time of her death that Eddowes was called Kelly.
His rough energy and determination make a good read, and we would do well to pay attention to what he put together simply because he was there at the time.
We ignore this slice of history at our peril. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1208
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 9:01 am: |
|
A.P.
This may not be determinable on your part, but when.as in what month, was the book by Hudson released that year ? The reason I ask,is because I understand the book was slapped together pretty rapidly.
What I'm driving at here,isn't it possible that Hudson was cognizant of the September 30th graffiti,via word of mouth or by newspaper account, and then included it in his book after finding out about the GSG ? I recognize that this is a long shot.
As an example of this "rush-to-print" sort of literature, may I remind all of books made during the O.J.Simpson trial and other contemporary trials that have occurred recently..
In addition,Hudson's emphasis on the way Jews spoke Pidgin Yiddish isn't exactly the same as how they wrote in Pidgin Yiddish,if they did that at all.
Since Pidgin [ similar to "chi", which is a form of Pig Latin spoken by Puerto Ricans and American pig latin "Oward-hay ote-ray is-thay ost-pay"...Howard wrote this post...] Yiddish is an oral form of communication and like the other two examples, rarely, if ever,used in written correspondence...perhaps if you have the time,could you post more from Hudson's book on this thread?
chi-Tha chi-Ank chi-You chi-my chi-am chi-igo !
Oward-hay. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2908
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
You could be right, Howard.
I'm about to sit down and read some more from Hudson, so I'll get back to you shortly. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5340
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Is it certain that the book was published in 1888? Couldn't the "1888" be part of the title?
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2909
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Robert
The Gale Resource gives a publication date of 1888, but there is a question mark by this.
The book was registered with the Library of Congress in Washington on publication, so they should have the year.
I've done a search through their on-line records but so far no luck. Perhaps you could crack it? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5341
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
No luck either, AP. Just got something called the Great American Tanner or somesuch.
Robert |
Eduardo Zinna
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eduardo
Post Number: 98
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Hello all,
I think some terms need to be defined.
What did Sam Hudson mean by Pidgin Yiddish?
Yiddish is a German dialect used for over 1,000 years by the Jews of Eastern and Central Europe. Its very name derives from Juddisch Deutsche: Jewish German. Within its Germanic structure, Yiddish has strong lexical elements of Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavic languages and even old romance languages like French and Italian. It was the everyday language of the Jews - as opposed to Hebrew, which was the language of religion and culture. Yiddish was certainly written, though not in Roman but in Hebrew characters.
Every language transplanted to a country where another language prevails will be influenced by that language and influence it in turn. Anybody who has spent any amount of time in New York City is familiar with the Yiddishisms used in everyday conversation - sometimes by people who are not aware of their origin. The same applies to words of Puerto Rican and Caribbean-Spanish origin in New York or of Mexican-Spanish origin in the American South-west, or to the Arabic words used by French speakers in Europe.
Now, there is no reason to believe that the Jews, who had arrived in London in large numbers following the assasination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, had developed a Yiddish dialect influenced by English within the space of only seven years. That process normally takes at least one generation, when the children of immigrants learn to use both the language of their parents and the language of the country where they were born. It is reasonable to assume that Yiddish speaking immigrants spoke broken English but uncontaminated Yiddish - except, of course, for the differences between immigrants from different regions.
Now, Pidgin Yiddish? That would be curious indeed. Pidgin is defined as a contact language, a trade language which draws on elements from two or more languages. As generally understood, pidgin is a hybrid "makeshift" language used among traders, in plantations, or for communication between Europeans and native populations throughout the world. Captain Cook spoke Pidgin to the inhabitants of the Pacific islands. The first Pidgin English is thought to have developed in Canton, China, in the 17th century. The word "pidgin" itself means business, and is though to have derived from the Chinese pronunciation of the word "business" - a notion with which the Chinese disagree.
Because of their origins, Pidgin languages are generally held in contempt, and the word pidgin is used as synonimous with inferior in such phrases as pidgin Latin or pidgin science.
Why would Yiddish-speaking Jewish immigrants develop a Pidgin Yiddish? To communicate with whom? Not to communicate with other Jews. Though the Yiddish of Polish Jews might differ from that of Dutch Jews, it would not be so different that it would require creating a Pidgin, a special trade language. After perhaps an initial shock, do people from say, Oklahoma, have so much dificulty in communicating with someone from Tasmania?
And one doubts that other Londoners developed a Pidgin to go trading with Jewish fried-fish sellers or second-hand-clothes sellers.
So, no curious Pidgin Yiddish could have existed, been spoken or written, but just plain Yiddish, a language Hudson in all probability didn't understand. The only explanation is that Hudson used the words Pidgin Yiddish in a derogatory manner to denote an immigrant language for which he had no respect. It's been said many times that racial prejudices were characteristic of the Victorian era. Prejudices motivated by language or culture, or prejudices against immmigrants and newcomers, are still very much with us.
Howard, Yiddish was and is a written language: look at The Arbeter Fraint, the works of Isaac Bashevis Singer and the signs over the tailor shops in old photographs. And neither Pig Latin nor Chi are Pidgins - but that's another story.
All the best,
Eduardo |
Eduardo Zinna
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eduardo
Post Number: 99
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Hello again,
In a rather old post in this thread, Simon Owen says that "The spelling of the word as ' Jews ' would surely be a familiar one to any denizen of the East End , due to it appearing in newspapers as well as in the Bible." (25 August 2005). The denizens of the East End who were Jews would read the Bible in Hebrew and most probably the newsapers as well. I haven't got handy statistics on the rate of literacy in the area at the time, but I don't think it could have been too high , either among Jews or non-Jews.
All the best,
Eduardo |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Sorry troops, the use of the word 'pidgin' was by myself - I think - and not Hudson.
I will find the quote again and then perhaps Robert might be kind enough to post it here?
Eduardo you make some damn good well thought out points in your post, but I do know the Jewish invasion of the East End of London began a long time before you suggest, as research from Mitre Square has shown that the first synagogue was located there many years before you suggest, and I actually found a murder that took place there when an East Ender - fed up with the noise the Jews were making at some celebration - leaned out of his window in Mitre Square and shot one dead with his blunderbuss. I think that case was very early in the 1800's. |
Eduardo Zinna
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eduardo
Post Number: 100
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Hi A P,
Spot on, as always.
Must run, but before I do I'll ask one question: were the first Jews in the East End Yiddish speakers - or was their language Ladino (Jewish Spanish) or Portuguese? In other words, did they come from Eastern Europe or were they Sephardic Jews from Spain, Portugal, the Ottoman Empire or Italy? Because those didn't speak Yiddish.
I don't know the answer off-hand myself, but I will look it up.
All the best,
Eduardo |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2912
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Thanks Eduardo
I think they came from Belgium and Germany, but I'll check. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5342
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
AP's sent me these pages concerning Juwes and Swiss Cottage.
Robert |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Dear Eduardo:
"Why would Yiddish-speaking Jewish immigrants develop a Pidgin Yiddish? To communicate with whom?"
Exactly.
Sorry to have given the impression that I was suggesting 'chi" or "pig latin" were anything other than oral "languages". I know they aren't. In fact, they aren't pidgin at all. They are just slang languages,spoken to "talk around" another party in their midst who doesn't speak either lingo...
In assessing the claim by Hudson ,it is probably true to say that Hudson's reference to "a hybrid dialect" refers to Yiddish directly. There are Slavic words and even one word [ off the top of my head ] that Magyar speakers use together alongside Yiddish speakers ...that being "courva",which means "whore" in both tongues. Hudson probably calls Yiddish a "hybrid dialect" in this instance because it does contain terms that are found in its mostly Germanic base that contain samples found in other languages....
A.P.;
The scan that Robert kindly placed here...this is the book from 1888 you were referring to,correct ? |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 302
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
I don't think there is a "J" in the Yiddish language. A Yiddish speaker would refer to a Jewish man as "Yid" and a Jewish woman as "Yidishke".
What this means to me was that the writer was not a native English speaker and was attempting to spell Jew in a way that made sense to him from how he heard it said by locals. He was probably more comfortable writing his message in Yiddish, but wanted many more people to be able to read it, so attempted it in English and had a hard time with the word "Jews".
As an aside, the words 'dialect' and 'language' are used politically to minimize a language or elevate a language. An example would be to call Yiddish a dialect. It is derivative of Hebrew and German, but it has a constant (within a given area) structure and produces depth of meaning, and so is a language. Historically, white males have used 'dialect' when discussing non-white languages. We call Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish languages when they are all based on Danish structure. To call Norwegian a dialect of Danish woul be to minimalize it.
Just something to think about.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Mike:
Good call,my man !!! There is not a "J" in the Yiddish alphabet.
Here's one link that shows just that...
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/german/yiddish/project/letters/ |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 305
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
How,
I dun good?
Jeepers!
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1214
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Mike:
Of course you did,old fart. You done the Midwest proud....
Here I have had that URL sitting around "idle" for a long time,but you made me remember it.
I had had it saved for a special person on site. Glad you shook it out of me. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Thanks Robert, much appreciated.
So they must have been 'ews' or 'uwes' then?
If 'J' didn't exist I mean.
And the Jews of the East End would have called him 'Ack the Ripper'.
No wonder the search engines don't work.
I can just see a Jew from the LVP trying to get on the Ubilee Line. |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 306
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 5:58 pm: |
|
Ap,
Are you being an erk?
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Robert
Janus Books has the following on the Hudson book:
'31. HUDSON, SAM'L E. “Leather Apron;” or the Horrors of Whitechapel, London, 1888. N.p.: Ripperological Preservation Society, n.d. [c. 1996]. Privately printed, n.d. First edition thus: paperbound original. 8.5 x 11-inch sheets in a metal spiral binding. A fine copy. One of the oldest non-fictional works about the Ripper. Originally published in late 1888 after the murder of Mary Kelly. $35.00.' |
Uninvited Guest
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Such small letters on brick with a piece of chalk - the exact spelling of Jews in this instance can never be reliably ascertained. It would appear that there is however no question or debate on the inclusion of an additional 'e'. Will it make a difference after years of debate, were we to finally know the correct spelling? I think not. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
