|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1360
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 8:04 pm: |       |
Since I am neither American or British, I hesitate to dive into this rather strange discussion, but I would be careful not to rely too heavily upon dictionaries and websites.
I would think that people born and and living in America, would know best if stuttering or stammering is used for the same purpose or not. As we know, dictionaries can tell us one thing, but the real official meaning of a word, used in real situations, can diverge from the academic explanation in a dictionary. To take such a source for granted, and try to convince Americans that they are wrong about the meaning of a word in their own native language seems to me a bit over the top.
As Vlad points out, on the web you can find anything to corroborate your personal views and that can also be done in dictionaries. I have three Swedish--English dictionaries and they are in no way always corroborating each other. I personally consider native individuals from the actual country in question as a more valid source regarding how a word is actually used and practised in daily life than an printed, academic one.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:06 am: | |
Ally,
My boyfriend is NOT suffering from any speech impairement! He gave me an example of a time when he stuttered and hesitated because he was being careful of what he said. He didn't want to get his sister into trouble from her boss for having a day off.
It is possible for speech impediments to begin in adulthood, and there are no close records of Joseph Barnett's life following the inquest you know.
STAMMERING AND STUTTERING ARE THE SAME THING!!!!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 282
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:31 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Ok, now I'm confused. You've been going on about how people without a speech impediment never stutter when they are nervous, and how silly we are to suggest Joe stuttered/stammered because he was nervous (and was being careful about what he said, etc). You express this amazement that you never do this very normal thing.
Now, when you pointed out that your boyfriend stuttered in a situation where he might be nervous (doesn't want to get his sister in trouble), I simply assumed that you actually believed what you've been pushing; which of course would mean your boyfriend, by your logic, has a stutter. He couldn't possiblely have stuttered in that situation otherwise.
Now, if you're telling me he doesn't have a stutter, why did you need others to provide you with an example that demonstrates the falseness of your claim that people without a speech impediment will stutter?
So which is it? Is he a stutterer, or have you conceded the point that people without a speech impediment will stutter on occasion?
If you agree you've conceded the point, why did you tell Ally you've not conceded the point?
If you've not conceded the point, why did you tell me your boyfriend doesn't have a stutter?
- Jeff |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 983
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 4:39 am: | |
Glenn,
You said:-
I would think that people born and and living in America, would know best if stuttering or stammering is used for the same purpose or not.
It is in Britain that those words would have appeared first and so if Americans use it differently it is because they choose to and does not affect the real meaning of the word, which is the same as stuttering.
Just wanted to point that out.
Anyway, back to the main point.
Leanne,
I thought you said that people who stutter must have a speech disorder.
Sarah |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 25
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 6:32 am: | |
Hello all,
True it stuttering/stammering was spoken in the UK and that is what matters. Do we know that they meant the same thing in 1888?
Vlad |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 7:08 am: | |
G'day,
JEFF: Now listen carefully: My Boyfriend is not a stutterer. He just told me for the first time that he once stuttered and hesitated, to give him more time to think of what to say. Overall he was masking the fact that his sister was doing something naughty. She was having a bludge! Now do you understand? He stuttered to hide something!
I did just think of a guy I know who genuinely stutters.........he has a brain injury!
LEANNE |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 424
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
Isn't convenient that Leanne ignores all evidence to the contrary until someone tells her something that she can use?
First it was people don't stutter if they don't have a speech impediment. Now they might stutter if they don't have a speech impediment...but only if they're lying.
I betcha anything now that we will get..people only stutter when they have an impediment(so he fits the profile) or people only stutter when they are lying (so he was lying about doing it). I love how she can latch on to the one thing that will help her case, and ignore completely every other bit of anecdotal evidence that doesn't.
Leanne,
I can just imagine what your book is going to be like if this is an example of your critical thinking skills.
Why did your boyfriend lie for his sister? Because he didn't want to get her in trouble. What emotion was behind his desire not to get her in trouble and so what emotion would he have been feeling when he picked up that phone and found himself speaking to her boss? Nervousness? Tenseness? He obviously wasn't calm or he would have delivered the lie in a smooth manner so as not to cause her boss suspicion. He didn't stutter because he was lying, he stuttered because he was worried.
And again...
 |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 8:13 am: | |
WHAT EMOTION? FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. YOU KNOW BETTER THAN ANY EXPERT! I'M NOT GOING TO BITE YOUR BAIT ANYMORE! THE END!
LEANNE |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 8:18 am: | |
Hi Vlad
Hoblyn’s Dictionary of Medical Terms (London 1892) gives the following definitions:
STAMMER and STUTTER. Terms employed synonymously to denote an involuntary interruption of speech arising from difficulty and often total inability of pronouncing certain syllables. See Psellismus.
PSELLI’SMUS (to stammer). Misenunciation; inaccurate articulation; a genus of the Dyscinesiae of Cullen, comprising the following species: -
1. Psellismus balbutiens. Lisping; faulty multiplication of labials.
2. Psellismus emolliens. Faulty substitution of soft for harsher letters.
3. Psellismus lallans. Lullaby-speech; mispronunciation of the letter l.
4. Psellismus ringens. Rotacismus; mispronunciation of the letter r.
5. Psellismus lagostomatum. Mispronunciation occasioned by harelip.
6. Psellismus acheilos. Mispronunciation arising from defect of lip.
7. Psellismus haesitans. Hesitation in speech.
8. Psellismus metallicus. The stammering which sometimes attends tremor mercurialis.
TREMOR METALLICUS. Metallic Shaking Palsy. A species of Paralysis agitans, caused by the slow poisonous action of certain metals, particularly mercury and lead, the former termed tremor ab hydrargyro or tremor mercurialis, the latter tremor Saturninus.
Hope that helps.
Best wishes
alex
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 425
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Uh oh. She's busted out the all caps. Look Leanne, I am not trying to bust your chops but you are being completely irrational here. Ask your boyfriend whether he stutters every time he lies or not. If he stutters every time he lies, then you can deduce that lying causes *him* to stutter. If he doesn't stutter everytime he lies, then it's the particular circumstances and emotion behind that particular occasion that caused the stuttering.
So very simply, ask your boyfriend whether he stutters every time he lies or not. If he does, then you can say he stuttered because he had to lie. If not, then you can't claim that lying makes him stutter.
|
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 26
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:19 am: | |
Alex,
Thank you, but I have already conceded that stammering and stuttering are "the same". What I am saying is that where I am from, they are used differently. I know the people I associate with use them to mean different things. The newspaper accounts were not written by doctors (did they even have speech therapists in 1888) and did the two terms mean exactly the same thing in 1888?
What I was trying to prove to Leanne is that you can not use the internet as a source, you can find ANY information you WANT to find to help your argument if you try hard enough. Alot (not all) of the speech therapy webpages have the exact same wording, which usually (usually being the key word) means they came form the same original source.
All of this is irrelevant as until we know that Barnett had a frequent stutter, it means nothing in the way that he had any disorder or that he lied.
Ally,
Does typing in all caps indicate SHOUTING?
A saying comes to mind, if you can not be right be wrong at the top of your lungs.
 
I hope everyone has a wonderful day.
Vlad |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
Hi Vlad
I’m not disagreeing with you in any sense. I just thought the Hoblyn’s definitions might help answer your question: “Do we know that they meant the same thing in 1888?”
For what it’s worth, I don’t think anything of great substance can be determined from a couple of newspaper reports that Barnett had a slight problem giving evidence, in what must have been a very stressful situation.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 989
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
Leanne,
I'm sure you have a good point but maybe you are not making too well. I know Ally can be a little too much to take at times (you can't deny it Ally) but maybe if you try once more just to answer some questions for me because I am trying to understand.
Are you saying that people who stutter either (a) are lying and trying to hide something or (b) have a disorder?
Sarah |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 759
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Hi,
Not the subject of stuttering again.
For the record I stuttered as a child, around the age of seven/ eight, the condition was not a lasting one, most likely bought upon, by the shock of losing my mother [ aged 32] and the prospects of attending a private school, and the examination,one had to sit through to gain admission.
I work with a chap , who stutters quite badly on occassions, usually when he is looking directly at you , making a point.
As I said Barnett stuttering , or stammering, is irrelevant to the book, it is just an observation, like the incident regarding grave spitting.
Regards Richard. |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 429
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I don't think anyone is saying that it is relevant to the book. You've already pointed out that it isn't in the book and so has Leanne. That's great. But we are allowed to discuss stuff that isn't relevant to your book and we are discussing what Leanne is posting here and what exactly she means here...not what is or isn't in the book we haven't read yet.
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 432
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Sarah,
You are wrong. I can deny whatever I want to deny. I can deny the sky is blue, I can deny that my dog really is dumb, I can deny that people have a right to disagree with me, I can deny, deny, deny.
Doesn't make it true...but I can still deny it if I wanna.
So nyah-nyah. 
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 283
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
Leanne,
I see you're back to conceding the point that people who do not have a stutter will sometimes stutter. See, you stated your boyfriend does not have a stutter, but he did on one occasion at least, stutter. That means you're conceding the point.
Now, remember how I concluded your boyfriend had a stutter because you posted that on one occasion he stuttered?
My conclusion was wrong, wasn't it.
What was my error?
My error was that I concluded your boyfriend had a speech impediment based upon his stuttering on one occasion without evidence about his speaking under conditions where he might not be nervous.
We have no evidence that Joe Barnett stuttered on any occasion other than giving his testimony at the inquest. A situation where he might be nervous. Sounding familear yet?
Just like my conclusion about your boyfriend was wrong, why should anyone (including yourself) be expected to believe the conclusion that Joe Barnett had a speech impediment?
There is no more evidence about Joe's speaking than I had about your boyfriend's.
Since my conclusion was wrong, how can we draw any conclusion about Joe?
Do you get it now? Do you now understand why saying Joe Barnett had a speech impediment is not a sound conclusion? Because it's exactly like me concluding your boyfriend had a speech impediment: and that was wrong! The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence.
That means you cannot be sure that Joe had any kind of speech impediment what-so-ever.
- Jeff |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 2:27 am: | |
Leanne,
Also, in a previous post, you stated that the "official notetaker" would not have recorded Barnett's repeated questions because it would have given him/her more time to take notes.
I don't know what they do where you are from, but here it is the job of the court stenographer (official notetaker) to report and record everything. This would certainly include repeated questions, stuttering, etc. Although they may choose not to write down every repeated question or try to spell out the stuttering, they most certainly would indicate, directly in the court transcript, that the witness was stuttering or repeating questions. It it i snot their job to interpret, it is their job to record, and in order to record exactly what is being said, it would be necessary to indicate that the witness was stuttering or repeating.
If you look at some testimony notes from court cases (or you have seen something on TV) you will notice that the written court transcripts often have spaces and ...... in them to indicate pauses when the witnesses speak. They also record words like "aahhh" and "ummm". So, certainly they would note stuttering, and if the witness repeating the questions, the repeated questions would be in the court transcript word for word with the rest of the testimony.
Tim
|
Brian Hall
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
Stammering, stuttering......ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!
WHO CARES!!!!!!} |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
First of all Leanne, here is the dictionary definition of stammer and stutter according to the Random House Webster's English Dictionary:
Stammer: To speak with INVOLUNTARY BREAKS and PAUSES, --or-- with spasmodic repititions of syllables or sounds.
Stutter: To speak with the rhythm interrupted by repititions, blocks or spasms, or prolongations of sounds or syllables.
Although these definitions are SOMEWHAT similar, everybody that I know would consider STAMMERING to indicate involuntary pauses or breaks (like aaaahhh --or-- uhhhh --or-- moments of silence) when giving a speech.
STUTTERING would define somebody that has spasms where they repeat the beginning of words, especially words beginning with s,l, and t.
Coincidentally, when I was at work I ran into a total stranger who happened to have a book with her entitled "Stuttering". I work on a college campus. Since we had been debating this, I decided to ask her about it. She was indeed studying stuttering (try saying that 10 times in a row real fast lol). I talked to her for about five minutes and she did not even know what stammering was, she had never heard the word before. Coincidentally I also happened to have talked to another person about it and they agreed that stammering was pausing (hemming and hawing) and that stuttering was a specific speech disorder. Both were studying subjects involving speech therapy, specifically stuttering. One had never even heard the word stammering.
So, don't tell me that stuttering and stammering are the same thing. In the UK maybe, but in the USA they are definitely different.
At any rate, refer to my previous post. Your newspaper reports are still conflicting no matter what the status of stuttering and stammering is.
Tim |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
Leanne,
Don't tell me to give it up!!
In the USA stammering and stuttering do not mean the same thing PERIOD.
Nobody calls the disorder that you are talking about "stammering".
In the USA stammering means somebody is "heeing nad hawing" or "beating around the bush" or "pausing with ahhhhh and aaaaaa and not getting to the point" or "being nervous, repetitive".
I have lived here my whole life. In fact there are no books here about this subject that are entitled "stammering", books about this subject -- the disorder -- are called "stuttering".
So, don't tell me to give it up.
I was apologizing to you because I was unaware that in the UK stammering and stuttering were the same thing.
But in the USA they are not, at all, the same thing. Stuttering is a speech disorder and stammering is something you do when you are nervous or unsure.
I don't need to site a website to tell you this, I know it, PERIOD. We don't consider them the same thing.
So, get off my case, there is no way that I would know that they were interchangeable in the UK.
I will reiterate myself one more time, since you don't seem to comprehend sometimes.
In the USA stammering and stuttering are DEFINITELY NOT REGARDED AS BEING THE SAME THING PERIOD.
AND, I will once again add that REPEATING THE LAST QUESTION ASKED TO YOU and STUTTERING ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Repeating the last questions asked to you would be "So, Leanne, how are you?" and LEANNE would say "So, LEanne, How are you?" GOT IT
Stuttering is when you say "Ssssss ssss so, Llll lllll e aaaane, Hhhh hh how aaaa rre yooou?" GOT IT
One of your papers said he stammered and the other stated he repeated. THEY CONFLICT. EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THEY CONFLICT. THIS CONFLICT HURTS HURTS HURTS YOUR ARGUMENT.
THEY CONFLICT CONFLICT CONFLICT YOUR ARGUMENT.
Tim |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 992
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
Tim,
I think people are past caring about stuttering and stammering but I do feel that I need to point you to the fact that the words "stuttering" and "stammering" are english words and so just because American's may use them for different meanings it doesn't make it so.
On this site http://www.starfishproject.freeserve.co.uk/whatis.htm
Stammering and stuttering are two different words that are used to describe the same condition.Generally speaking 'stuttering' is used more commonly in North America and Australia, while in Britain we tend to use the word 'stammering'.
As Ally says above though, it's hard to use the internet as evidence because your can find anything you want on it so your example or mine for that matter can't be taken that seriously. I'm not saying that in the USA people don't use stammer and stutter differently but that doesn't change their original meanings and how they should be used.
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 440
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
Language is not a static thing. Just because what we speak in America has it's roots in Britain does not mean that you speak it correctly and that we speak it incorrectly. British English is not correct English--it is British. American English is not correct English--it is American.
You cannot say that an original term is the only correct one and should be used in that exact way forever after. After all English itself is a language that stole words from just about every language it encountered and used them for their own purposes.
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 213
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
Sarah,
Ok, I want to make sure I am understanding what you say before I get upset. Are you saying that Americans are incorrectly speaking English? I am Irish. The Irish come to America speaking one kind of "English". As time goes on, we speak another kind of "English". The "English" we spoke in Eire was different than what the Brits spoke, but I believe that it is all "English". So what exactly are you saying??? That as a Brit you speak the only correct form of "English"??
Michael |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 548
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 2:02 pm: | |
I agree with Ally and Mikey. There is however a dialect of English [from the Kent area originally]
that is called received English or Standard English.Its this English that is written in text books and quite a bit of literature.But fom a strictly linguistic point of view it is neither better or worse than any other dialect of English.
In fact some of the most gifted writers and poets have deliberately chosen to express themselves in dialect-Robert Burns,James Joyce[some of his anyway] Lynton Kwesi Johnson etc.
Natalie
|
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
Hi all,
>After all English itself is a language that stole words from just about every language it encountered and used them for their own purposes.
Absolutely.
BTW, can anyone tell me, what's the French word for "croissant"?? 
Jim |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 192
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Jim,
Stole words? One of the major reasons English is such a wonderfully expressive language, with often dozens of synonyms (and often each with a nuanced difference), is that its speakers have been so willing to adopt (and adapt) words from nearly every other language they have encountered.
Don. |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 27
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Hello All,
I think what I get from Sarah's statement (at least one of the posts in the thread) was that it does not matter what we speak here in the US but what matters is how the two term are perceived and used in the UK as that is where JB gave his testimony and where the newspapers printed the reports. It would matter what Stutter/stammered meant in "American English" if we referenced an article in an American newspaper.
But I will let Sarah speak for herself.
I still wish we knew how they would have used those terms in 1888, although that means nothing until we prove Barnett Stuttered all the time. Till then I do not believe he had a disorder of any kind.
Thanks,
Vlad |
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
Hey Jim, are you talking about the food or about growing?
Chris 
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 996
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 4:43 am: | |
Vlad,
Well done, I think you said it better than me.
All,
I am not saying that Americans speak incorrect English and I am aware that English itself come from other languages but all these events happened in London, UK so in my mind is doesn't matter how American's use the word, it does not affect the British meaning which in this case I would have to say is the correct one.
I'm not saying he stuttered/stammered, I'm just pointing out that American's can't start saying that the two words are different when they are not in British which, I'm sorry if it sounds rude, is what counts here.
Sarah |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 9:59 pm: | |
"Stuttering" and "stammering" mean different things. Why? Because when people use them they can be and often are used for different things. That means the words have inherent differences. The fact that some people use them interchangeably does not mean that they are exactly the same. It's kind of like trying to say that ruby and maroon mean the same thing because they are both red.
Regardless of the fight over definitions, the real world meaning of the incident in question is that Barnett stumbled in some way that we can not specify during his testimony. The only way that it'd be reasonable to imply that he had a speech impediment is if we knew the specifics of how he spoke most of the time and those instances showed clear pathology.
Leanne's staments in this thread are the equivalent of assuming someone had terminal cancer because during one report of one time he spoke he coughed a few times... and then assuming that he was a chronic smoker because why else would he have cancer. |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 80
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:12 am: | |
Hi
I believe that Joe was stammering because he was in a very emotion state. Excitement, confusion, fatigue and uncertainty, increase stammering.
Te Aroha News
New Zealand
12, December 1888
The woman had a paramour, a man who sells oranges on the streets, and on whom, as he could not be found, suspicion at once reverted, but he turned up all right tonight, and fainted when he was shown the woman's body.
Nina
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page