|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 66
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 1:02 pm: |       |
Andy,
And what of the use of may rather than might?
Don. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 297
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 2:08 pm: | |
Don,
The distinction between "may" and "might" has always confused me. I invite anyone to correct me if I'm wrong here. I believe "may" is optitive and "might" is conditional or causative. The optitive mood expresses a wish: "May you have a long and happy life." Conditional or causative would be: "You should quit smoking so that you might have a long and happy life." But there may also be a use of "may" to express an uncertainty. ;) At least I know I use it that way.
Of course, "may" can also be permissive, as in "May I have a cookie?" but that is a different use (Or is it? Is this not also an uncertainty?)
My guess is that "may" is a grammatical error here and that it should be "might", since the sentence "I may send you the bloody knife if you wait a while longer" is conditional. But I may be wrong.
This and the distinction between "shall" and "will" drives me bonkers.
Andy S. [a not-so-smart linguist]
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 298
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:01 pm: | |
To clarify a bit my previous post. "May" can also mean "to some degree likely to be," a more specific case of uncertainty, as in "you may be right." So, "I may send you the bloody knife" technically means, "I am somewhat likely to send you the bloody knife" if we press the grammar. But, to get real, on one -- except perhaps a journalist -- would get that technical about his usage.
Andy S.
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 67
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:33 pm: | |
Andrew,
I agree, we are probably getting too technical, but it can be fun. Some grammarians frown on may as a conditional, reserving that for might whereas others argue that may is more intensive than might in the conditional. But, as you wrote, unless the note's author was a teacher or journalist the nuances of his word usage are likely just happenstance.
As for shall/will, I was taught that in the first person will is the more intense usage, but with the second and third person it is just the opposite. Thus, if the Goulston Street message had been written by Jack the Grammarian it should have had SHALL rather than "will" if he really meant it.
Nope, that is not about to solve anything.
Don. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:52 pm: | |
Hi all
Wasn't there a game "catch as catch can"? Was this another name for tag?
Robert |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 68
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 4:24 pm: | |
Robert,
Don't know about tag, but in 19th century USA any sort of rough & tumble, anything goes wrestling was termed "catch as catch can." |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 299
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 4:38 pm: | |
Don't know about tag, but in 19th century USA any sort of rough & tumble, anything goes wrestling was termed "catch as catch can."
I thought that was "no holds barred!" Seriously, I never understood the phrase "catch as catch can." Sounds like gibberish to me.
Andy S [<--- a former wrestler]
|
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 65
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 4:58 pm: | |
Hi Andy, Don,
Might "I may send you the bloody knife" not technically mean “It may be that I send you the bloody knife”, or rather “Maybe I send you the bloody knife”?
In Dutch there is no difference between the conditional ‘if’ and the matter-of-time ‘when’. For ‘if’ we can use ‘als’ or ‘wanneer’ and the same goes for ‘when’. So, modern Dutch can’t be of any help in this case.
Whereas “catch me if you can” implies that a certain ability is needed in order to catch the writer, “catch me when you can” is even more taunting, because there’s no condition involved. It’s like the writer’s saying: “You inferior creatures, I’m right under your noses, but you simply don’t see me!” So, he’s putting his pursuers down even more than in case he would have used ‘if’.
All the best,
Frank
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 69
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 5:17 pm: | |
Andy,
As a former wrestler you know that with either regular competitive wrestling (if it has a name it eludes me at the moment) or Greco-Roman the contestants start from fixed positions, whereas in the backwoods "no holds barred" (I'm cool with that phrase) wrestling the two individuals just circled each other waiting for the opportunity to catch hold of the other any way they could -- hence "catch as catch can." As a teen I was involved in more than a few of those matches myself.
But now that I'm more than an adult, at least chronologically, if asked to choose the weapons in a duel I would probably opt for marshmallows at 20 paces.
Don. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 5:25 pm: | |
Thanks Don "Bonecrusher" Souden and Andy "Carnage" Spallek.
Robert |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 70
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 8:27 pm: | |
Robert,
Suh, your tone is insulting and I demand satisfaction -- as soon as I collect enough marshmallows with which we may pelt each other.
Don. |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 142
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:35 pm: | |
I have to say, I am thoroughly enjoying this thread. I'm a hack writer, so any language exercise is going to fascinate me! 
I'm inclined to agree with Andrew and Sarah about the tone of "Catch me when you can." I just don't see this as taunting, unless it's simply a grammatical error. To my mind it sounds more like what others have suggested--"Catch me when you get a chance," or, like William Heirens's lipstick-scrawled message on one of his victims's bedroom wall ("For heaven's sake catch me before I kill more, I cannot control myself), a cry for help.
On the foreign language front: As soon as my husband wakes up I'll ask him what the Slavic construction would be for such a sentence.
P.S. Is it possible the writer was using a dictionary to spell some of the more difficult words, and relying on his memory for the ones he perceived as being "easier"? |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 73
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 11:00 pm: | |
Erin,
Using a dictionary for the difficult words and memory for the easier ones was just the approach Ring Lardner used when composing the letters written by a barely educated baseball player in his classic You Know Me, Al. No less a critic than F. Scott Fitzgerald felt that in such efforts Lardner displayed a perfect ear for the American idiom.
Of course, if Lardner (an educated man) could use that technique to suggest the scrawlings of the scarcely literate, then one must concede that a clever "Jack" could do the same. So, we get no forrader.
By the way: There are no "hack writers" just unappreciative editors -- or so mothers like to believe anyway.
Don. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 300
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 10:56 am: | |
Frank,
Dutch and German appear to share the commonality of conditional and temporal (matter of time) construction, whereas English and (especially) French are more careful to distinguish grammatically between them.
“catch me if you can” implies that a certain ability is needed in order to catch the writer
Yes, ability and/or opportunity that is uncertain.
“catch me when you can” is even more taunting, because there’s no condition involved.
I would agree. Grammatically, it implies that the opportunity is, or will certainly be, there. In my mind this is even a stronger taunt because it leaves nothing to chance.
Donald,
Seems to me the wrestling phrase should be "catch as you can", meaning "catch any way you can." "Catch as catch can" makes the second "catch" the subject of the phrase, which makes no sense to me.
Erin,
I'd be interested in what your husband says about the Slavic construction, particularly if there would be any difference between "Catch me if you can" and "Catch me when you can" in the Slavic languages.
Andy S. [<---formerly a fan of "Dick the Bruiser"]
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 74
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 11:17 am: | |
Andy,
Dick the Bruiser? You are dating yourself. But at least back then pro wrestling was "honest." Ha ha.
As for "catch as catch can," well clearly it should be something like "acquire physical control of any portion of the opponent's anatomy in any manner of which you are capable." Of course before you finished that mouthful the bout would be over. At least the original is nicely alliterative and since when have catch phrases made sense (e.g. the oft heard but illogical "I could care less" when the speaker clearly means he could NOT care less).
Now back to work.
Don. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 301
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 3:42 pm: | |
Don,
Yes, I know it dates me. I was but a wee lad then.
"I could care less" is an example of using irony, saying the opposite of what you mean in such a way as to communicate that you mean the opposite. Another example is when my buddy spills his pint and I respond by saying "Oh that's great!" when I really mean "How terrible!"
I think this is different from "catch as catch can." But, I realize I'm trying to make sense of a nonsensical expression, so I'll quit.
Andy S.[<---who never spills his pint; almost never]
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 3:39 am: | |
Hi Don,
‘…since when have catch phrases made sense…’
Was that pun intended? 
So is either catch phrase a catch-all catch phrase?
‘Catch as catch can’
‘Catch me when you can’
There’s a catch - we catch all here apart from Jack, although some of us couldn’t catch a cold.
Catch my drift?
Love,
Caz
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 78
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 10:18 am: | |
Caz,
Intended? Yes, and it was nice catch on your part. Indeed, the catch of the day.
Don. |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 69
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi all,
So far, we’ve mostly looked at some of the grammatical aspects of the letter and along the way got caught in the fun – which is always interesting and nice, for I’m both a language and fun fan (is this correct English?) – but how about the contents of it and it’s 'enclosure'?
To me, there are 4 reasons which make it likely that the Lusk letter was genuine:
The 'enclosure'
The medical men that actually examined the kidney portion agreed on one point, namely that it was human. Only people who were well acquainted with the case would have known about the left kidney being taken from Catherine Eddowes’ body. It might be possible that a medical student or someone else with easy access to a kidney sent the letter, but for others it would have meant that they had to go through quite a bit of trouble for a ‘simple’ hoax.
The timing
The package was received about two weeks after the ‘Dear Boss’-missives, when perhaps the excitement surrounding the supposed ‘double event’ had subsided, and by which time the police, press and the public had assumed that the missives were the real thing and therefore had started to refer to the killer as Jack the Ripper. The killer might have wanted to put things right and at the same time incite a renewed attention for his murders.
The contents
One way of interpreting the letter is that the author meant to inform his pursuers in the most concise way that he knew that he and he alone was the one who had murdered those women, and not this man who called himself ‘Jack the Ripper’. This writer authenticated the letter not by signing off with that stupid name ‘Jack the Ripper’, but with a more familiar signature, i.e. part of the kidney he took from Catherine Eddowes.
Furthermore, I wonder if any normal person would have come up with such a gruesome and bizarre thing as cannibalism. Especially when one considers that in those days nothing was known about serial killers, which makes it even more unlikely that a layman hoaxer would conjure this trait out of his top hat.
The signing off
As I said under ‘the timing’, by mid-October the police, press and public all believed the actual murderer to be the source of the ‘Dear Boss’-missives. Surely the Lusk letter author must have been aware of it. So, if the author were a hoaxer who wanted to be taken seriously, he certainly would have used the name Jack the Ripper to authenticate his letter.
Frank
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 489
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 12:55 pm: | |
Hi, Frank:
You wrote--
. . . I wonder if any normal person would have come up with such a gruesome and bizarre thing as cannibalism. Especially when one considers that in those days nothing was known about serial killers, which makes it even more unlikely that a layman hoaxer would conjure this trait out of his top hat.
The notion of cannibalism would have been known by people of the day through from the story of the Sawney Bean family of Ayrshire, Scotland, from Grimm's Fairy Tales (Hansel and Gretel), and so on. We can't discount the possibility that the Lusk letter writer was a sensation monger or a practical joker. The part about eating the half a kidney is a tasty shocker just like the bit about trying to write with blood in the Dear Boss letter, but neither of them ideas that would have been unknown to the masses who had been exposed to fairy tales, had heard the Sawney Bean story, or read about such sensations in penny dreadfuls.
All the best
Chris |
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 42
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 1:48 pm: | |
I thought Sawney Bean and family lived in England just south of the Scotland border?
I do know though that they were all executed in Edinborough, though, so I may have to look that up tonight when I get home. It's a fascinating story. |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
Hi All,
Frank wrote:
"Only people who were well acquainted with the case would have known about the left kidney being taken from Catherine Eddowes’ body."
It was widely reported in the press coverage of the Eddowes inquest that her left kidney had been removed. So, that was pretty much common knowledge by the time the Lusk letter was posted, which only increases the probability that the letter was a hoax. All IMHO, of course.
Best to all,
Jim |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1598
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 3:23 pm: | |
Hi Chris
There was also Magwitch's threat to Pip in "Great Expectations" re tearing out, roasting and eating his heart and liver!
Robert |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 8:11 pm: | |
Hi Robert
That's actually a very good allusion to Dickens that you have brought up, i.e., Magwitch's threat to Pip in Great Expectations re tearing out, roasting and eating his heart and liver. As you probably know, Dickens' works were extremely popular in his lifetime, and his books were serialized as well as published in book form. Not only that but he was a high profile celebrity who performed his works around the country. We can imagine that Dickens might have read that passage out of Great Expectations with great relish and that memory of it had stuck in the folk consciousness.
In my prior message I might have mentioned that in addition to people in England in 1888 probably knowing about cannibalism from Sawney Bean, Hansel and Gretel, etc., there were reports in the press of cannibals in the South Seas and elsewhere. It was reported last month that the residents of a Fiji village have apologised to the family of an English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribespeople 136 years ago. Rev. Thomas Baker, from Playden in East Sussex, was killed and cooked by the people of Nabutautau on 21 July, 1867. One villager who took part in the cannibals' feast was quoted in contemporary accounts as saying "we ate everything but his boots" and one of Baker's boots is reportedly on display in the Fiji Museum.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on December 19, 2003) |
Timsta
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:11 pm: | |
"Five little gingerbread men lying on a tray"
"Eight little whores, with no hope of heaven"
Hmmmm.
Timsta
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
