Blackfriars signatures: answer to Roger, Part I
Tom Reedy
"ben-Jonson" <stritm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152310560.1...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Tom Reedy
wrote:
>> ben-Jonson wrote:
>> > Tom Reedy wrote:
>> > > "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> > > news:1152149684....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > The two Blackfriars signatures are items b and c on this site:
>> > > >
>> > > > http://home.att.net/~tleary/sigs.htm
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm no expert on Elizabethan writing, but they do not look at all
>> > > > like
>> > > > the same hand to me. Roger has given reasons why he believes they
>> > > > are
>> > > > not, as follows:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1) B abbreviates William, C does not.
>> > >
>> > > If you look at
>> > > http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16055/16055-h/16055-h.htm, you
>> > > can see why one is abbreviated and the other is not. B is on one
>> > > line, C is
>> > > on two lines.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what why this is relevant. Kipling tells us that the
>> > leopard got his spots because an Ethiopian put five fingers on him.
>> > His explanation was, of course, intended as a jest. Why is your
>> > explanation better than his?
One is abbreviated because both names are on one line. On C, he uses two
lines, one line for each name.
If you're asking why he signed B on one line, I don't know. But my
explanation, which is self-evident, explains the reason for the
abbreviation.
>> > > > 2) In B the h is of a secretary form, in C a blunted italic.
>> > >
>> > > Look at the English secretary alphabet on John Baker's page at
>> > > http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/collier2.htm. You will see that
>> > > the h is
>> > > Eng. sec.
>> >
>> > Tom, I don't think you understand the difference between the two
>> > copybook forms. This isn't something you can learn in five minutes on
>> > the internet. Your URL proves the point at issue, which is that the
>> > secretary h has a long loop below the line, while the italic looks like
>> > our modern h.
>> > >
>> > > > 3) In general, the forms of B are secretary and the forms of C are
>> > > > italic.
>> > >
>> > > Actually, I would say the forms of B are cursive, while the forms of
>> > > C are
>> > > printed. And the s of B is italic.
>> >
>> > "Cursive" is an utterly anachronistic term that would not be used by
>> > anyone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
>> > handwriting. The two relevant terms are secretary (also known as
>> > "English") and italic.
>>
>> You're joking, right?
>>
>> If you want to see some cursive from the 2nd century, go to Dianne
>> Tillotson's Web site here:
>> http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/writing.htm.
>>
>> and here's some cursive from the 8th century:
>> http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/writing.htm
>>
>
> Its interesting that Latin the term "cursiva anglicana" is used to
> describe Medieval scripts. But until you show that this term is
> current in the study of early modern paleography (15th-17th c), your
> learning does not go to the point at issue.
>
> Your readers need not be fooled into the absurd implication that
> terminology relevant to the study of handwriting in the 13th century is
> applicable to study of handwriting in the 17th. That's a bit like
> saying that Dante was a contemporary of Shakespeare; it might be good
> enough for Government work, but don't try to write any checks with it.
>
> Please cite *a relevant* example, or tell me that *you* are joking.
I've already given you cites, but for the benefit of those who don't have
access to those resources, let me quote them so we can all see whether they
truly use the term "in the study of early modern paleography (15th-17th c)."
Pages 10, 11 and 12 of Giles Dawson and Laetitia Kennedy-Skipton's
*Elizabethan Handwriting, 1500-1650: A Manual*.
Page 10: Yet a third class of hands was in use in England for certain
purposes during the whole of the age of the secretary hand (and much earlier
too). These, known as court hands, grew out of the need for relatively fast
hands for business, especially the business of the courts and government
offices at Westminster. They were usually cursive hands, not without
pretentions to elegance.
Let's see. We'd better make us a little check list to see if my examples fit
the requirements.
A. Used by someone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
handwriting?
I guess that depends if you accept Giles Dawson and Laetitia Yeandle as at
least "minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting, but I'm
going to go ahead and put it down as a "yes." Let me know if you have any
objections.
B. Used the term "cursive."
Easy one. Yes.
C. The term is used "in the study of early modern paleography (15th-17th
c)."
Well, the book *IS* entitled *Elizabethan Handwriting, 1500-1650: A Manual*,
and they do say "during the whole of the age of the secretary hand," so I'm
going to put it down as a "yes," unless you object.
Page 11: The book hand was one of the ancestors of the secretary hand.
Another may be recognized in the court hands and closely related legal hands
. . . . But these two hands are not the immediate progenitors of the
secretary. A union between them had, at least as early as 1400, produced a
hand called the bastard hand . . . . In Plate 1B it will be seen to be in
some degree cursive, to be written with a fine pen and few penlifts, and to
be freer and faster than the book hand.
A. We've already established a "yes" in this category.
B. Used the term "cursive." Yes.
C. The term is used "in the study of early modern paleography (15th-17th
c)." Well, just barely. 1400 is technically the end of the 14th century,
but since it's discussing the development of secretary hand, I'm going to go
ahead and put it in the "yes" column unless you object, OK?
Page 12: The origin of the italic hand is simpler than that of the
secretary, also late spontaneous. In the late fourteenth century a number of
humanistic scholars . . . Undertook a quest for a hand faster than the
gothic book hands . . . . The hand they developed is known as the humanistic
script. It tended, like its model, to be vertical but was, unlike its model,
cursive, and its letters were in general taller and narrower than those of
Carolingian miniscule . . . .
I think the answer to our checklist is pretty obvious here.
Next example:
Introduction on pages 1-41 of Anthony Petti's *English Literary Hands from
Chaucer to Dryden*, but especially the section discussing secretary hand on
page 14.
I'm just going to quote the page 14 section:
Iii. Secretary. No sooner was anglicana at its height than it was challenged
by another cursive script as the general-purpose documentary and book hand
below the class of formata. The new script has only recently been given a
separate name, being known as secretary, partly because it is the main
antecedent to 16th-century secretary, while its continental counterpart is
called cursiva. Though the earliest forms of secretary seem to have
originated in Italy, it was a direct importation from France during the
reign of the Francophile, Richard II, and is found in Chancery warrants in
the 1370s. It steadily grew in popularity and was widespread by the middle
of the 15th century.
OK, now for our checklist.
A. Used by someone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
handwriting?
The flyleaf of the do reads thusly: Anthony G. Petti has published numerous
critical editions and scholarly articles on literary, historical and musical
manuscripts of the medieval and Renaissance periods. He now teaches
palaeography at the University of Calgary, where he is Professor of English.
So I'm giving it a "yes."
I think B and C are self-evident.
Next example:
The discussion of transcriptional principles on page 23 of Braunmuller's *A
Seventeenth Century Letter-Book: A facsimile edition of Folger MS. V.a.
321.*
The cursive downward loop (example) at the end of words or syllables has
been transcribed as "es" rather than simply "s" since the writers frequently
employ the more standard letter for the terminal s (example).
Checklist:
A. From the UCLA Web site: A. R. Braunmuller teaches English and Comparative
Literature at UCLA; his special interests are Renaissance and modern drama.
He received the B.A. from Stanford University and the Ph.D. in English from
Yale University, where he held a National Merit scholarship and a NDEA Title
IV fellowship, respectively. He has been honored with fellowships from the
National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Council of Learned
Societies, the Folger Shakespeare Library, and the College Institute, UCLA;
in 1981, he won the Eby award for the art of teaching and in 1994 the Gold
Shield Faculty Prize given biennially for excellence in teaching, research,
and service at UCLA. In addition to numerous articles on Renaissance and
modern dramatists, he has edited several plays -- most recently,
Shakespeare's King John (Oxford, 1989) and Macbeth (Cambridge, 1997); he has
published a critical study of George Peele (1983) and A Seventeenth-Century
Letter-Book (Delaware, 1983), an edition and study of a manuscript
containing numerous original items by George Chapman and Ben Jonson. His
most recent critical book is Natural Fictions: George Chapman's Major
Tragedies (Delaware, 1992). With Michael Hattaway, he co-edited and
contributed to The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama and
wrote a chapter on Stuart art collecting and literary patronage for The
Mental World of the Jacobean Court (both Cambridge University Press). He
currently serves as Associate General Editor of the New Cambridge
Shakespeare and as co-general editor of the New Pelican Shakespeare. He
recently completed (with David S. Rodes) a CD-Rom version of Macbeth. He
published the New Pelican edition of Antony and Cleopatra in 1999 and the
New Pelican Merchant of Venice in the autumn of 2000. His essay on names and
history in Henry IV, Part 2 will shortly appear in Shakespeare Quarterly.
I would say he is at least "minimally schooled in the history of English
handwriting," wouldn't you?
B. Yes
C. Well, since the book is a manuscript copybook of letters dated between
1584 and 1615, and it was compiled in 1616, it's a "yes" in this category,
also.
One more example and then I'll call it quits for this section.
*English Handwriting 1400-1650* by Jean F. Preston and Laetitia Yeandle.
Page 12: "The statutes and ordenauncys of the . . . Garter," ca. 1560.
The statutes are written in a Bastard Secretary book hand, which is a highly
calligraphic script combining the cursive characteristics of Secretary with
the formal proportions and angularity of Textura.
Page 16: Codicil in English to the Latin Will of Margaret la Zouche, October
6, 1449
This mid-fifteenth-century hand is clearly Secretary . . . . The hand is
cursive but regular, evenly spaced, and easy to read.
Page 56: Autograph letter from Lady Grace Cavendish to Jane Kniveton,
October 10, ca. 1585
Lady Grace's letter is a good example of a sixteenth-century lady's Italic
hand. . . . The hand is not cursive; each letter is formed with at least one
separate pen-stroke and sometimes with two . . . .
Page 74: John de Feckenham, "This Booke of souereigne medicines," ca. 1600
This manuscript features two distinct hands, the second taking over
mid-paragraph and leaving off mid-sentence (lines 15-19). Both are late
Elizabethan Secretary hands, the first more cursive than the second.
Checklist:
A. We've already established Laetitia Yeandle as someone who is at least
"minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting." Jean Preston is
the curator of medieval manuscripts at the Princeton University Library, and
she was curator at the Huntington Library previously. She has taught
paleography at UCLA, NYU and Princeton, and directed the Folger's six-week
Summer Institute in the Archival Sciences in 1983.
So I'll give her a conditional "yes" in the "minimally schooled in the
history of English handwriting" department, pending your objection.
B. Yes
C. Yes
So how is *your* checklist coming along, Roger?
When you say, "'Cursive' is an utterly anachronistic term that would not be
used by anyone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
handwriting," how does that statement stack up?
You only have two choices here:
A. You're full of shit, and
B. You're full of shit.
So let me be the first to tell you, Roger, in case you haven't figured it
out yet: You're full of shit.
ben-Jonson
that particular variation.
> If you're asking why he signed B on one line, I don't know. But my
> explanation, which is self-evident, explains the reason for the
> abbreviation.
>
Explanations are rarely self-evident, Tom, and this one certainly is
not so. And I didn't ask you that follow up, but it's a good one.
More importantly, you've answered only *one* of my four empirical
points with a *possible* explanation. Where are your other answers?
Alas, I see you aren't going to answer my other three points. That's a
pity.
Tom, Laetitia Yeandle and Giles Dawson are using the word cursive as
descriptive term -- and adjective -- not as a class of handwriting, as
you used it. Their definition does not support the presumption of your
argument that the term is used to describe an early modern style of
hand.
>
> Pages 10, 11 and 12 of Giles Dawson and Laetitia Kennedy-Skipton's
> *Elizabethan Handwriting, 1500-1650: A Manual*.
>
> Page 10: Yet a third class of hands was in use in England for certain
> purposes during the whole of the age of the secretary hand (and much earlier
> too). These, known as court hands, grew out of the need for relatively fast
> hands for business, especially the business of the courts and government
> offices at Westminster. They were usually cursive hands, not without
> pretentions to elegance.
>
> Let's see. We'd better make us a little check list to see if my examples fit
> the requirements.
>
> A. Used [as a definitional term to describe a copybook style, as are the terms "Secretary" and "Italic"] by someone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
> handwriting?
Not by any evidence you've presented so far.
>
> I guess that depends if you accept Giles Dawson and Laetitia Yeandle as at
> least "minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting, but I'm
> going to go ahead and put it down as a "yes." Let me know if you have any
> objections.
I certainly accept their authority. I have the book, in fact.
Have you ever met Laetitia? She's a delightful person, my favorite
Folger staff person (though now, alas, retired) by a long shot.
>
> B. Used the term "cursive."
>
> Easy one. Yes.
Wrong.
For those who might be confused, let me elaborate on that conclusion by
reviewing the history of this dialogue.
You have shifted your ground.
First you tried to argue that the term "cursive" was used to describe a
copybook (that is, that it could be used as a term parallel to the
well-known terms "Secretary" and "Italic"), by citing a 13th century
example of a Latin hand, Cursiva Anglicana.
After it was pointed out to you that this was irrelevant, and the OED
does not support the use of the term as applied to handwriting before
the 18th century, you changed your position and are trying to slide
past with these instances of descriptive uses of the word in the 20th
century.
It's true that if anyone should be tempted to ignore the original
context of my statement, it might seem like you have produced a
formidable body of evidence. However, when I said that the term was not
used by early modern paleographers, I meant that it was not used in the
sense that you used it or that it would be used in modern handwriting
analysis, in which it does describe a copybook form. I would not have
had any reason to shift my ground on that point.
You are the one who must prove that the word is used *as you used it*
-- as a term defining a class of early modern English handwriting
*applicable to the samples in question.* You haven't done so yet, but
let us keep reading....
>
> C. The term is used[as a definitional term to describe a copybook style, as are the terms "Secretary" and "Italic"] "in the study of early modern paleography (15th-17th
> c)."
You have not yet produced a proof that the term is used in Early Modern
Paleography in the fashion you used it -- as a definition and not as a
descriptive word. I will read on...
>
> Well, the book *IS* entitled *Elizabethan Handwriting, 1500-1650: A Manual*,
> and they do say "during the whole of the age of the secretary hand," so I'm
> going to put it down as a "yes," unless you object.
>
> Page 11: The book hand was one of the ancestors of the secretary hand.
> Another may be recognized in the court hands and closely related legal hands
> . . . . But these two hands are not the immediate progenitors of the
> secretary. A union between them had, at least as early as 1400, produced a
> hand called the bastard hand . . . . In Plate 1B it will be seen to be in
> some degree cursive, to be written with a fine pen and few penlifts, and to
> be freer and faster than the book hand.
>
> A. We've already established a "yes" in this category.
>
> B. Used the term "cursive." Yes.
>
Again, this use is descriptive.
> C. The term is used "in the study of early modern paleography (15th-17th
> c)." Well, just barely. 1400 is technically the end of the 14th century,
> but since it's discussing the development of secretary hand, I'm going to go
> ahead and put it in the "yes" column unless you object, OK?
Ditto.
>
> Page 12: The origin of the italic hand is simpler than that of the
> secretary, also late spontaneous. In the late fourteenth century a number of
> humanistic scholars . . . Undertook a quest for a hand faster than the
> gothic book hands . . . . The hand they developed is known as the humanistic
> script. It tended, like its model, to be vertical but was, unlike its model,
> cursive, and its letters were in general taller and narrower than those of
> Carolingian miniscule . . . .
>
> I think the answer to our checklist is pretty obvious here.
What's most obvious about the passage is that it confirms and
underscores that the two main English copybooks of the period are known
by all early modern paleographers as Italic and Secretary, and that
"cursive" is used in the field only as a descriptive term.
>
> Next example:
>
> Introduction on pages 1-41 of Anthony Petti's *English Literary Hands from
> Chaucer to Dryden*, but especially the section discussing secretary hand on
> page 14.
>
> I'm just going to quote the page 14 section:
>
> Iii. Secretary. No sooner was anglicana at its height than it was challenged
> by another cursive script as the general-purpose documentary and book hand
> below the class of formata. The new script has only recently been given a
> separate name, being known as secretary, partly because it is the main
> antecedent to 16th-century secretary, while its continental counterpart is
> called cursiva. Though the earliest forms of secretary seem to have
> originated in Italy, it was a direct importation from France during the
> reign of the Francophile, Richard II, and is found in Chancery warrants in
> the 1370s. It steadily grew in popularity and was widespread by the middle
> of the 15th century.
>
That's your best example so far, Tom.
But notice that "cursive" is here used to describe the Secretary hand.
This means that your original distinction, which started this entire
discussion, was purely semantic, since you argued that forms I termed
Secretary should be called "cursive."
Notice, moreover, since we are also concerned with the uses of
terminology within the field, *what* your source says: this "cursive
script" [adjective, noun]..."has been given a separate
name....secretary." It doesn't say that that the hand can be *called*
Cursive, or that cursive is something different from Secretary; it
applies the word cursive as a descriptive adjectie applied to the
Secretary Hand.
So, even your best example doesn't support you.
> OK, now for our checklist.
>
> A. Used by someone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
> handwriting?
>
> The flyleaf of the do reads thusly: Anthony G. Petti has published numerous
> critical editions and scholarly articles on literary, historical and musical
> manuscripts of the medieval and Renaissance periods. He now teaches
> palaeography at the University of Calgary, where he is Professor of English.
>
> So I'm giving it a "yes."
Give it whatever you like. It's incorrect.
>
> I think B and C are self-evident.
There's a convenient locution.
>
> Next example:
>
> The discussion of transcriptional principles on page 23 of Braunmuller's *A
> Seventeenth Century Letter-Book: A facsimile edition of Folger MS. V.a.
> 321.*
>
> The cursive downward loop (example) at the end of words or syllables has
> been transcribed as "es" rather than simply "s" since the writers frequently
> employ the more standard letter for the terminal s (example).
Again, descriptive.
Absolutely. Very impressive credentials. If what he wrote actually
supported your position, your time in the library would be well
rewarded. I would have to retract. But it doesn't.
>
> B. Yes
>
> C. Well, since the book is a manuscript copybook of letters dated between
> 1584 and 1615, and it was compiled in 1616, it's a "yes" in this category,
> also.
>
No, it's still descriptive. It does not define a hand. It describes the
characteristics of one.
> One more example and then I'll call it quits for this section.
Wise idea.
>
> *English Handwriting 1400-1650* by Jean F. Preston and Laetitia Yeandle.
>
> Page 12: "The statutes and ordenauncys of the . . . Garter," ca. 1560.
>
> The statutes are written in a Bastard Secretary book hand, which is a highly
> calligraphic script combining the cursive characteristics of Secretary with
> the formal proportions and angularity of Textura.
Again, your example shows that cursive is used in a descriptive manner
as a way of describing something known as the Secretary hand, which
puts you in quite a pickle.
You started this debate by saying that something I described as
Secretary looked to you like it was "cursive," as if that were
something different from Secretary. Preston and Yeandle apparently
don't agree with you, any more than Braunmuller does.
>
> Page 16: Codicil in English to the Latin Will of Margaret la Zouche, October
> 6, 1449
>
> This mid-fifteenth-century hand is clearly Secretary . . . . The hand is
> cursive but regular, evenly spaced, and easy to read.
>
You're carrying coals to Newcastle, Tom.
> Page 56: Autograph letter from Lady Grace Cavendish to Jane Kniveton,
> October 10, ca. 1585
>
> Lady Grace's letter is a good example of a sixteenth-century lady's Italic
> hand. . . . The hand is not cursive; each letter is formed with at least one
> separate pen-stroke and sometimes with two . . . .
>
> Page 74: John de Feckenham, "This Booke of souereigne medicines," ca. 1600
>
> This manuscript features two distinct hands, the second taking over
> mid-paragraph and leaving off mid-sentence (lines 15-19). Both are late
> Elizabethan Secretary hands, the first more cursive than the second.
Again, your example shows that cursive is a descriptive term used to
describe a characteristic of the Secretary hand, not a separate form of
the hand or a third discrete hand. All Secretary hands are more cursive
(ie more connected) than the Italic hands of the 16th century, some
more and some less so, as you surely are aware.
>
> Checklist:
>
> A. We've already established Laetitia Yeandle as someone who is at least
> "minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting." Jean Preston is
> the curator of medieval manuscripts at the Princeton University Library, and
> she was curator at the Huntington Library previously. She has taught
> paleography at UCLA, NYU and Princeton, and directed the Folger's six-week
> Summer Institute in the Archival Sciences in 1983.
>
> So I'll give her a conditional "yes" in the "minimally schooled in the
> history of English handwriting" department, pending your objection.
>
> B. Yes
>
> C. Yes
>
> So how is *your* checklist coming along, Roger?
>
> When you say, "'Cursive' is an utterly anachronistic term that would not be
> used by anyone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
> handwriting," how does that statement stack up?
>
> You only have two choices here:
>
> A. You're full of shit, and
>
> B. You're full of shit.
>
> So let me be the first to tell you, Roger, in case you haven't figured it
> out yet: You're full of shit.
Tom, isn't it interesting that one can often tell which party to a
dispute is on solid ground and which is not by the level of decorum of
the players? Those who resort to name-calling and abuse are usually not
doing well. They seek to distract attention from the logical failures
of their arguments by abusing their opponents.
To summarize, your very long post demonstrates over and over again that
1) The term "cursive" is used by Early Modern Paleographers exclusively
as a descriptive term, not as a definition of a particular copybook
form of handwriting, as it can be and is of later English hands.
2) The term is usually associated with the Secretary hand.
As I see it, you have two choices here:
1) Admit that "Cursive" is not used in any of your cited sources as a
definition of a copybook hand; ie, it is not used in the sense you used
it in your post, and therefore your argument was based on an invalid
premise.
2) Focus on the fact that the word "cursive" is used as a descriptive
term in Paleographical studies, and that I therefore did not word my
response very carefully and am guilty of a shameless failure to clarify
an ambiguous term that you introduced. So far this has been your
primary strategy. In this case, you might say that cursive is the same
thing as Secretary, which would allow you to declare victory over me,
but it would be a Phyrric victory. It would mean that your original
argument is meaningless.
Take your pick. Thanks for the discussion.
-Ben
Tom Reedy
Yes, they are, aren't they? Contrary to your contention that "'Cursive' is
an utterly anachronistic term that would not be used by anyone who is even
minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting."
Turns out "utterly" is not quite teh case, is it?
> as
> descriptive term -- and adjective --
No shit. Imagine that, they're using it the same way I used it, to describe
the difference between two types of script.
Let's see what our handy-dandy online Webster's tells us:
Main Entry: 1curæ–°ive
Pronunciation: 'k&r-siv
Function: adjective
Etymology: French or Medieval Latin; French cursif, from Medieval Latin
cursivus, literally, running, from Latin cursus, past participle of currere
to run
: RUNNING, COURSING: as a of writing : flowing often with the strokes of
successive characters joined and the angles rounded b : having a flowing,
easy, impromptu character
Do tell! I believe I even used the term flowing in a subsequent post!
Whaddya know about that?
But wait, there's a noun definition, too! Let's see:
Main Entry: 2cursive
Function: noun
1 : a manuscript written in cursive writing; also : cursive writing
2 : a style of printed letter resembling handwriting
It doesn't say anything about a particular script, soes it? there could be
italic cursive, and secretary cursive, and any number of scripts could be
called cursive, couldn't they?
> not as a class of handwriting, as
> you used it.
Back up. I used it the same way they did. I even posted a clarification when
it became obvious that Lynne had misunderstood how I was using te\he term. I
said both signatures were English secretary, and that the main difference
was that one was cursive and one was not--I used the term "printed" or
"set."
> Their definition does not support the presumption of your
> argument that the term is used to describe an early modern style of
> hand.
But you just said they used it "as a descriptive term."
You know what?
You're response is pathetic. You don't even have the class to admit when
you're wrong. Because the way you and your phony scholars over there see it,
it's all about *being* right, not about finding out *what* is right. You've
told each other lies so long about the "important work" you're all doing,
you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your ass.
Several times on this newsgroup I've had to admit I was talking out of my
ass--I admitted it reluctantly, kicking and screaming, but at least I had
the balls to do it.
Several times in the past few weeks Peter Farey has admitted he was
wrong--the way I was I could do it: promptly and without looking for
loopholes. But you and your ilk don't have the class to do that.
You couldn't carry Peter Farey's notebook. when you grow up, you're going to
be John Baker. Think about that and see if that's what you really want.
>> Pages 10, 11 and 12 of Giles Dawson and Laetitia Kennedy-Skipton's
>> *Elizabethan Handwriting, 1500-1650: A Manual*.
>>
>> Page 10: Yet a third class of hands was in use in England for certain
>> purposes during the whole of the age of the secretary hand (and much
>> earlier
>> too). These, known as court hands, grew out of the need for relatively
>> fast
>> hands for business, especially the business of the courts and government
>> offices at Westminster. They were usually cursive hands, not without
>> pretentions to elegance.
>>
>> Let's see. We'd better make us a little check list to see if my examples
>> fit
>> the requirements.
>>
>> A. Used [as a definitional term to describe a copybook style, as are the
>> terms "Secretary" and "Italic"]
I'd appreciate it if you had the honesty to not try to change my posting.
But I realize that's probably too much to ask, given that you're an
antiStratfordian, whose beliefs are based on distortions, willful
misreadings and outright lies.
> by someone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
>> handwriting?
>
> Not by any evidence you've presented so far.
>>
>> I guess that depends if you accept Giles Dawson and Laetitia Yeandle as
>> at
>> least "minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting, but I'm
>> going to go ahead and put it down as a "yes." Let me know if you have any
>> objections.
>
> I certainly accept their authority. I have the book, in fact.
It's a shame you haven't read it. You might have avoided making a complete
ass out of yourself.
> Have you ever met Laetitia? She's a delightful person, my favorite
> Folger staff person (though now, alas, retired) by a long shot.
Unfortunately for you, having met her does not make you a big shot.
>> B. Used the term "cursive."
>>
>> Easy one. Yes.
>
> Wrong.
>
>
> For those who might be confused, let me elaborate on that conclusion by
> reviewing the history of this dialogue.
>
> You have shifted your ground.
Oh, *I* have shifted *my* ground?
It wasn't I who wrote, "'Cursive' is an utterly anachronistic term that
would not be used by anyone who is even minimally schooled in the history of
English handwriting."
> First you tried to argue that the term "cursive" was used to describe a
> copybook (that is, that it could be used as a term parallel to the
> well-known terms "Secretary" and "Italic"), by citing a 13th century
> example of a Latin hand, Cursiva Anglicana.
"Latin hand?" what do you think "Anglicana" refers to? You're panicked.
Keep digging your hole. Obviously you don't think it's deep enough.
Unfortunately for you, the dialog is archived on Google for anyone to go
back and see just how full of shit you are.
> After it was pointed out to you that this was irrelevant, and the OED
> does not support the use of the term as applied to handwriting before
> the 18th century, you changed your position and are trying to slide
> past with these instances of descriptive uses of the word in the 20th
> century.
>
> It's true that if anyone should be tempted to ignore the original
> context of my statement, it might seem like you have produced a
> formidable body of evidence. However, when I said that the term was not
> used by early modern paleographers, I meant that it was not used in the
> sense that you used it or that it would be used in modern handwriting
> analysis, in which it does describe a copybook form. I would not have
> had any reason to shift my ground on that point.
"I say orgies, not because it's the common term, because it ain't --
obsequies bein' the common term -- but because orgies is the right term.
Obsequies ain't used in England no more now -- it's gone out. We say orgies
now in England. Orgies is better, because it means the thing you're after
more exact. It's a word that's made up out'n the Greek orgo, outside, open,
abroad; and the Hebrew jeesum, to plant, cover up; hence inter. So, you see,
funeral orgies is an open er public funeral."
Cut more of the same pathetic backpedaling and shadow boxing.
TR
Tom Reedy
news:7A0sg.3702$Zf.3634@trnddc04...
One small correction:
> Several times in the past few weeks Peter Farey has admitted he was
> wrong--the way I *wish* I could do it: promptly and without looking for
> loopholes.
The rest of the typos I can live with.
TR
Mouse
Forgive me for butting in, Tom. But you have left out the most
important part of the quote. Here is the relevant dialogue:
Roger: In general, the forms of B are secretary and the forms of C are
italic.
Tom: Actually, I would say the forms of B are cursive, while the forms
of
C are printed. And the s of B is italic.
[You were using the terms cursive and printed to define hands. The fact
that you started with "Actually" shows you were disagreeing with his
defining terms for the signatures. The fact that you then said the s of
B was italic meant that you were adding an extra term to your defining
terms of cursive and printed. So your meaning was quite clear]
Roger: "Cursive" is an utterly anachronistic term that would not be
used by anyone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
handwriting. *The two relevant terms are secretary (also known as
"English") and italic.*
He was saying that the word cursive was anachronistic (it is) and would
never be used to define writing hands in the early seventeenth century,
as you had done, because the two terms used for documents such as the
ones you were looking at were secretary and italic.
>
> Turns out "utterly" is not quite teh case, is it?
>
> > as
> > descriptive term -- and adjective --
>
> No shit. Imagine that, they're using it the same way I used it, to describe
> the difference between two types of script.
>
> Let's see what our handy-dandy online Webster's tells us:
>
> Main Entry: 1cur·sive
If you look at your original message, and my responses, both private
and public, I had not misunderstood anything. I pointed out to you that
Roger had used the terms secretary and italic for b and c, and you had
originally *countered* with cursive and printed. Indeed, as secretary
tends to be "running" or cursive, and italic not, I pointed out that
you were in fact agreeing with him.
Will now leave the conversation to you guys. I have a tennis game to
watch.
Mouse
> begin 666 audio.gif
> M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
> M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D
> 3IT[I>K9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P``
> `
> end
Tom Reedy
Tom Reedy wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Tom, Laetitia Yeandle and Giles Dawson are using the word cursive
>
> Yes, they are, aren't they? Contrary to your contention that "'Cursive' is
> an utterly anachronistic term that would not be used by anyone who is even
> minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting."
> Forgive me for butting in, Tom. But you have left out the most
important part of the quote. Here is the relevant dialogue:
> Roger: In general, the forms of B are secretary and the forms of C are
italic.
> Tom: Actually, I would say the forms of B are cursive, while the forms
of C are printed. And the s of B is italic.
> [You were using the terms cursive and printed to define hands. The fact
> that you started with "Actually" shows you were disagreeing with his
defining terms for the signatures.
Excuse me, but we were not "defining hands." We were talking about the
differences between two specific signatures. I was pointing out the most
telling differences of the forms between the two.
The word "actually" means "in truth, in reality," terms antiStratfordians
have trouble understanding.
It's the equivalent of him saying, "The defining difference between those
two people is that one is short and one is tall," and I say, "No, the
defining difference is that one is male and the other is female." He then
goes on to sneer, ""'Male' and 'female' are terms that would not be used by
anyone who is even minimally schooled in the history of measuring height."
Of course, I realize you have to defend him. It's kind of like a support
group for the reality-challenged.
> The fact that you then said the s of B was italic meant that you
> were adding an extra term to your defining
> terms of cursive and printed. So your meaning was quite clear]
> Roger: "Cursive" is an utterly anachronistic term that would not be
> used by anyone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
> handwriting. *The two relevant terms are secretary (also known as
> "English") and italic.*
Except he was utterly, completely and totally wrong, wasn't he?
> He was saying that the word cursive was anachronistic (it is) and would
> never be used to define writing hands in the early seventeenth century,
Again, we were not on an exercise "to define writing hands in the early
seventeenth century." We were giving our opinions as to the differences
between two specific signatures.
And I know what he said. Anybody can read the posts and see what he said.
TR
Mouse
This is not the same thing at all.
>
> Of course, I realize you have to defend him. It's kind of like a support
> group for the reality-challenged.
I'm not defending him. You said I misunderstood when I don't think I
did.
I'm sorry you feel you have to insult me, Tom. I am hardly reality
challenged. Indeed, sometimes lately I wish I were.
Regards,
L.
KCL
KCL: It's my observation that Tom is actually insulting Roger, and
theFellowship, and anti-Stratfordians. He wrote:
You know what?
You're response is pathetic. You don't even have the class to admit
when
you're wrong. Because the way you and your phony scholars over there
see it,
it's all about *being* right, not about finding out *what* is right.
You've
told each other lies so long about the "important work" you're all
doing,
you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your ass.
And later, in the same post:
I'd appreciate it if you had the honesty to not try to change my
posting.
But I realize that's probably too much to ask, given that you're an
antiStratfordian, whose beliefs are based on distortions, willful
misreadings and outright lies.
KCL: That you are included in the above, Lynne, is an inescapable
conclusion. That it misrepresents reality is clear to me. But it is
easy as pie to make such a statement if one gets excited enough.
And what if there is a distinction to be made between thinking that the
work you're doing is making a important contribution and having an
attitude of self-importance toward your work? Your adversary might be
inclined to call it the latter, especially if he thinks it can somehow
show his argument to advantage, while your friend might be inclined
to call it the former, as she is participating in the work with you.
In addition, the charge that Oxfordians or others engaged in the
authorship question willfully misread documents, lie or distort the
evidence, is easily made. It's emotional, anyone can understand the
charge as they like, it isn't specific so how can it be challenged? It
is meant to be taken as an 'important,' 'self-evident' proclamation,
that should be understood as being *so true* that "not to know it
argues yourself unknown," to quote Shaw.
In reality, it is a perfect mirror of the position of the one who makes
the statement, a perfect articulation of the Stratfordian belief
system.
I know, because I was a Stratfordian once. :)
Cheers,
KC
kenkap
off on Dooley that by definition everyone in England who was educated
had to be a writer. A valient try at distraction after getting yourself
in quite a pickle.
Ken
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> Forgive me for butting in, Tom. But you have left out the most
> important part of the quote. Here is the relevant dialogue:
> Roger: In general, the forms of B are secretary and the forms of C are
> italic.
> Tom: Actually, I would say the forms of B are cursive, while the forms
> of C are printed. And the s of B is italic.
> [You were using the terms cursive and printed to define hands. The fact
> that you started with "Actually" shows you were disagreeing with his
> defining terms for the signatures. The fact that you then said the s of
> B was italic meant that you were adding an extra term to your defining
> terms of cursive and printed. So your meaning was quite clear]
You left out something, Lynne, the part where I said: I might should have
said one looks cursive and the other looks like a set hand (instead of
print), but all the forms of both signatures, except for the long s, look to
me to be English secretary.
In case you don't remember, it was the July 6 post in which I said he had a
good point when he pointed out that changing signatures over time would not
account for the variations between the two Blackfriars signatures.
> Roger: "Cursive" is an utterly anachronistic term that would not be
> used by anyone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
> handwriting. *The two relevant terms are secretary (also known as
> "English") and italic.*
> He was saying that the word cursive was anachronistic (it is) and would
> never be used to define writing hands in the early seventeenth century,
> as you had done, because the two terms used for documents such as the
> ones you were looking at were secretary and italic.
<snip>
> If you look at your original message, and my responses, both private
> and public, I had not misunderstood anything. I pointed out to you that
> Roger had used the terms secretary and italic for b and c, and you had
> originally *countered* with cursive and printed. Indeed, as secretary
> tends to be "running" or cursive, and italic not, I pointed out that
> you were in fact agreeing with him.
Whether you understood or misunderstood me is moot as far as this
discussion. The fact is, I thought you misunderstood me, which caused me to
post a clarification. In that post, I said plainly I thought both forms were
secretary. Here's exactly what I said:
BEGIN:
I'm saying they both are English secretary, and that one is more
cursive while the other is not. While Roger said the differences
between the two was in the type of script - secretary vs. italic -
I said the differences could be explained better by the style of the
same type of script - secretary cursive vs. secretary printed or set.
END
I couldn't make it any plainer, yet Roger continued to tell us how I was
misusing the term "cursive" and how it "would not be used by anyone who is
even minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting." He even
reiterated his point in a post that replied to yours that contained my
clarification.
So his excuse and your defense that I was using the term wrong won't wash.
> Will now leave the conversation to you guys. I have a tennis game to
> watch.
You won't want to miss Part 2.
TR
> Mouse
>
Mouse
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1152450291....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Forgive me for butting in, Tom. But you have left out the most
> > important part of the quote. Here is the relevant dialogue:
>
> > Roger: In general, the forms of B are secretary and the forms of C are
> > italic.
>
> > Tom: Actually, I would say the forms of B are cursive, while the forms
> > of C are printed. And the s of B is italic.
>
> > [You were using the terms cursive and printed to define hands. The fact
> > that you started with "Actually" shows you were disagreeing with his
> > defining terms for the signatures. The fact that you then said the s of
> > B was italic meant that you were adding an extra term to your defining
> > terms of cursive and printed. So your meaning was quite clear]
>
> You left out something, Lynne, the part where I said: I might should have
> said one looks cursive and the other looks like a set hand (instead of
> print), but all the forms of both signatures, except for the long s, look to
> me to be English secretary.
You might/should have said it, but you actually didn't until after you
had posted your remarks on cursive, and Roger had said that cursive was
not a recognised hand at the time, that the two hands were called
secretary and italic. If you now want to say that you were initially
wrong, or at least, realised that your answer appeared to wrongly
identify a hand as cursive, but you later tempered your reply, I'm sure
everyone would be more than happy to let the matter drop. I know I
would.
I make many mistakes myself, probably more than anyone (sane) here, and
am always apologising for them, so I would almost have to see it as a
sign of strength on your part.
Well, I think that's because you went after him for saying no scholar
would use it.
>
> So his excuse and your defense that I was using the term wrong won't wash.
It will wash, dry, and be ironed. All you need to say is that you
modified your stance.
>
> > Will now leave the conversation to you guys. I have a tennis game to
> > watch.
>
> You won't want to miss Part 2.
The tennis game was much, much better than you guys arguing, actually,
although I wouldn't have minded seeing Nidal win. And the
football/soccer game was great till a French player butted an Italian
player in the chest and more or less destroyed France's chance of
winning. Not to mention he could have killed his adversary.
A good day for sports, especially here in TO, where there was also a
big Grand Prix race today. Glad you're replying in a more sporting
manner now also. It's much better than screaming and kicking. ;)
Love,
L.
>
> TR
>
> > Mouse
> >
Tom Reedy
??????
Didn't I just get done saying that I *had* done it? And that Roger had
plenty of time to respond to it, but he kept reiterating his lamebrain
opinion?
> I'm sure
> everyone would be more than happy to let the matter drop. I know I
> would.
I'm sure you would. It certainly puts your camp in a bad light -- or worse
light, I should say. The general opinion of antiStratfordian research is not
that high to begin with.
> I make many mistakes myself, probably more than anyone (sane) here, and
> am always apologising for them, so I would almost have to see it as a
> sign of strength on your part.
Oh, I agree. You should tell that to him.
TR
LynnE
Sorry, am very slow lately. Are you saying now that you tempered your
original wrong reply? That would make quite a difference.
>
> > I'm sure
> > everyone would be more than happy to let the matter drop. I know I
> > would.
>
> I'm sure you would. It certainly puts your camp in a bad light -- or worse
> light, I should say. The general opinion of antiStratfordian research is not
> that high to begin with.
That is neither here nor there. Nor am I sure what "general opinion"
means--and best you don't enlighten me--though your sentence looks like
an unhappy return to insult as a method of argument.
>
> > I make many mistakes myself, probably more than anyone (sane) here, and
> > am always apologising for them, so I would almost have to see it as a
> > sign of strength on your part.
>
> Oh, I agree. You should tell that to him.
Well, Roger is mistaken sometimes also, like everybody here, except of
course Terry, who is never wrong and lets us know it in very forceful
terms, ;) but I think in this case it was you who initially tried to
apply cursive to the signature as the term used for a
sixteenth/seventeenth century hand. That was a mistake that set off the
whole discussion. That you later corrected yourself is to your credit.
That you won't admit it is not.
Love,
L.
igNotO
BJ did respond to it Tom, here's the passage:
TR: "I [might] should have said one looks cursive and the other looks
like a set hand (instead of print), but all the forms of both
signatures, except for the long s, look to me to be English secretary."
BJ: "The forms of C, as I stated, are much more italic in nature than
those
of B. If you can't see that, you're wasting your time, mine, and that
of your readers."
BJ then said:
"To a considerable extent, Tom, its clear that you like to engage in
semantic debates. The forms of the two letters are very different.
Leaving out the term cursive, which as you now know from Lynne's post,
was not applied to English handwriting forms until the 18th century,
how would you describe the difference between the two letter forms?
Saying that they are both secretary is pointless. So is muddying the
copybook distinction early modern paleographers use to distinguish
between secretary and italic. The formation of each name is distinctive
by any number of axes used by paleographers. Anyone can see that, even
without getting caught up the technical details of this debate."
I think it is pretty clear that BJ was not prepared to accept 'cursive'
as any way applicable to the form of english hands prior to the 18th
century.
bookburn
"kenkap" <kenka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152463995.1...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm exhausted. I haven't seen such frantic tap dancing since Ross went
> off on Dooley that by definition everyone in England who was educated
> had to be a writer. A valient try at distraction after getting yourself
> in quite a pickle.
I wonder "where's the meat?" but I think I find the "pickle" as an argument
against using a descriptive "anachronism" because it would not have existed at
the time.
My example is from a seminar on linguistics I sat in, and in presenting my
paper described something as a "dictionary interest in words" Elizabethans
had. The professor countered that, "there couldn't have been a dictionary
interest in words then because they didn't have any dictionaries." I couldn't
tell whether he was joking or making a serious point, so didn't mention that
they had English-French dictionaries or published lists of words. The point,
I assume, is that even cultural anthropologists describe archaic stuff in
current language.
Similarly, I doubt if its cricket for RS to correct TR for using the term
"cursive" because it wasn't used at the time to describe anything of the
difference between Secretary and Italic, although it is now.
Anyway, if those on the Oxford bandwagon impose arbitrary constraints on
Elizabethan scholarship, it would be a big mistake imo, of the kind John Baker
made by whimsically signing his name with a PhD, and then answering
head-hunting critics by added other credentials, like Rev., etc.. Despite
tongue in cheek attempts to disarm, it's difficult to shake off a spearl like
"Dr. Faker," which arrow no doubt remains in the quiver of those with real
PhDs. I think there must be a way to reinforce only the "good" things said or
just comment humorously, like women do. (TR should get more in touch with his
female side, hee, hee). Maybe you should even let your antagonists have a
bite of your back, once in a while.(;-)
bookburn
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> Well, Roger is mistaken sometimes also, like everybody here, except of
> course Terry, who is never wrong and lets us know it in very forceful
> terms, ;) but I think in this case it was you who initially tried to
> apply cursive to the signature as the term used for a
> sixteenth/seventeenth century hand.
Once again, I did not use it "as the term used for a
sixteenth/seventeenth century hand." I used it to describe a particular
example, i.e., one of the Blackfriars signatures.
> That was a mistake that set off the
> whole discussion.
Only it wasn't a mistake.
See http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/palaeography/doc5/intro.htm. You
need to tell the National Archives how wrong they are when their Web
site says, "The document is written in a very cursive late secretary
hand."
> That you later corrected yourself is to your credit.
> That you won't admit it is not.
Hmm. So I corrected myself, told you about it, but somehow won't admit
it.
The mind of an antiStratfordian doing what it does best!
TR
>
> Love,
>
> L.
>
Mouse
Yes. Telling the truth.
L.
>
> TR
>
> >
> > Love,
> >
> > L.
> >
ben-Jonson
Much that has needed to be said in response to your new thread has
already been said by KC and Mouse.
KC has given some choice excerpts illustrating how you tend to respond
when you evidently feel threatened.
http://groups.google.com/group/humanitie...61d982bf4dd43c2
And Mouse has exposed your habit of very carefully amending the
comments of other posters so as to make your own positions seem more
credible than they actually were and thereby attempt to create a false
impression about the actual history of an exchange.
For instance, on July 9 you summarized the state of the debate this
way:
> Yes, they are, aren't they? Contrary to your contention that "'Cursive' is
> an utterly anachronistic term that would not be used by anyone who is even
> minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting."
Lynne replied:
"Forgive me for butting in, Tom. But you have left out the most
important part of the quote. Here is the relevant dialogue:
Roger: In general, the forms of B are secretary and the forms of C are
italic.
Tom: Actually, I would say the forms of B are cursive, while the forms
of
C are printed. And the s of B is italic.
[You were using the terms cursive and printed to define hands. The fact
that you started with "Actually" shows you were disagreeing with his
defining terms for the signatures. The fact that you then said the s of
B was italic meant that you were adding an extra term to your defining
terms of cursive and printed. So your meaning was quite clear]
Roger: "Cursive" is an utterly anachronistic term that would not be
used by anyone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
handwriting. *The two relevant terms are secretary (also known as
"English") and italic.*
He was saying that the word cursive was anachronistic (it is) and would
never be used to define writing hands in the early seventeenth century,
as you had done, because the two terms used for documents such as the
ones you were looking at were secretary and italic."
For some reason you seem to feel, Tom, that your argument depends on
what you call "judicious editing" of your adversary.
Perhaps you felt it would be productive to prolong this lengthy and
detailed exchange over whether or not the word "cursive," in the
manner in which you used it in your original response, was relevant to
the topic at hand, rather than dealing with the substance of what I
have written about the differences between the two hands.
But, having listened to the evolution of your argument for several
days, I see that you have arrived at a credible after- the-fact defense
of your position.
Your point now seems to be that both words should be classified as
being in the Secretary hand but that one is more cursive in character
than the other. Is that it?
Of course, we shouldn't forget to mention that you also said at one
point that only one of the two signatures should have any evidentiary
value, which seems to imply that you believe that only one is in the
hand of the Bard, but for the moment I'll forget about that and accept
this most recent revision of your position as at least plausibly
coherent in and of itself.
In fact, if you'd just have said that week ago you would have spared
yourself and everyone else a great of confusion. But I realize that
like the rest of us, it sometimes takes you a while to get your own
position figured out.
And while I have no beef with this, I must admit that I do often find
the evolution of your thinking difficult to follow since you seem to
have a habit of omitting many of the most critical bits until they get
pointed out by others.
For example, in response to Mouse pointing out that you had quoted me
out of context, and explaining the original context, you countered with
your own accusation:
"You left out something, Lynne, the part where I said: I might should
have
said one looks cursive and the other looks like a set hand (instead of
print), but all the forms of both signatures, except for the long s,
look to
me to be English secretary.
In case you don't remember, it was the July 6 post in which I said he
had a
good point when he pointed out that changing signatures over time would
not
account for the variations between the two Blackfriars signatures."
When I first read this I admit I was more than a bit confused. First of
all, I couldn't understand what your second paragraph had to do with
the first. To say the least, the logical connection is not clear: the
first paragraph is about how Lynne supposedly didn't represent your
words completely, and the second is about how you had agreed with me on
an apparently unrelated point.
More importantly, it occurred to me that while you may have admitted on
July 6 that I had made a valid point about the dating of the
Blackfriars deeds (par 2), it was not until July 9, four days after the
original post in question, that you posted your statement about what
you should have said on July 5 (par 1).
I wondered why you remembered the date in a case in which it was
irrelevant and forgot it in another that was vital to the credibility
of your accusation, when anyone who knew the actual sequence of events
could see that the two paragraphs were out of chronological order. Then
I remembered that most people would not know the actual sequence of
events.
It was especially confusing when you used the passive construction "In
case you don't remember, it was the July 6 post." On first reading, it
seemed like the antecedent of "it" was the quotation from the previous
paragraph, but then when I read to the end of the sentence I realized
you were talking about something else altogether and that "it" couldn't
refer to the previous quotation since you wrote those words on July 9,
not only July 6. All very puzzling.
But, be that as it may, since Lynne was not claiming to represent your
July 9 remarks in her response to you, I don't see how any reasonable
person can hold her accountable for "leaving something out." See my
point?
On the other hand, it is obvious that you misrepresented my argument
when you quoted me out of context. Perhaps you thought that no one
would bother to consult the original and point out your faulty citation
procedures. By now you must know that Lynne doesn't let anyone get away
with that.
In this same post you state that
"I'm saying they both are English secretary, and that one is more
cursive while the other is not. While Roger said the differences
between the two was in the type of script - secretary vs. italic -
I said the differences could be explained better by the style of the
same type of script - secretary cursive vs. secretary printed or set.
END
I couldn't make it any plainer, yet Roger continued to tell us how I
was
misusing the term "cursive" and how it "would not be used by anyone who
is
even minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting." He even
reiterated his point in a post that replied to yours that contained my
clarification."
As I said, if you had just started out by saying that both hands were
Secretary (English, course, is redundant here), and that one was more
cursive than the other, you'd have saved us all a deal of confusion.
When you say you "couldn't make it any plainer," however, I don't
follow you.
The fact is, you originally suggested that the terms Secretary and
Italic should be replaced by "cursive" and "printed", and you
didn't mention the theory that both of them should be considered
"Secretary" until five days later, after you had been proven wrong
on several critical points (e.g. the relevance of a 13th century
continental copybook form to a 17th century English hand, etc.)
Do early modern paleographers use the term "cursive" in a
descriptive sense? Of course! Should I have worded my response to you
more carefully? Of course! I'm guilty of uncritically adopting a
terminology that you established and assuming that you would continue
to use it in the original sense. I apologize if anyone was confused by
my stubbornness. You, on the other hand, are guilty of changing your
story a half dozen times without admitting it.
So let's take stock, shall we?
You now claim that
"we were not "defining hands." We were talking about the
differences between two specific signatures."
I'll leave aside the question of what you were doing.
But please don't speak for me or try to tell Lynne what I was doing.
What I was doing was responding to your apparent attempt to displace
the correct copybook terms, Secretary and Italic, with two terms of
doubtful validity, "cursive" and "print."
I still have yet to hear you acknowledge that one reason the term
"cursive" is a bad word choice is that it does have a technical,
definitional meaning in modern handwriting analysis, while it does
*not* in the early modern period. Moreover, the fact that you
juxtaposed this word with "print" reinforces the anachronistic
character of your original formulation, since in modern parlance that
word is the copybook antonym of cursive. Surely it is understandable
that one might over-react to your (now retracted) attempt to replace
("Actually..." you wrote) two technically correct Copybook terms with
two that are anachronistic and are not used to describe copybook forms.
But all that is water under the bridge if you now say that what you
should have said is that both words were in a Secretary hand. I might
even have to agree with you on that, although I would say, as I said a
week ago, that the forms of C are much more italic than are those of B,
while seem to prefer putting it that the forms of B are more cursive
than the forms of C.
Either way it sounds to me like two different ways to skin a Texas
orange, so I'm left puzzled what all the heat has been about.
"I was pointing out the most
telling differences of the forms between the two."
This is a curious new claim.
Where in any of your posts have you "pointed out the most telling
differences of the forms between the two"? Perhaps I missed it. What I
have read is numerous posts in which you engage in terminological
disputes and creative ad hominems. I haven't read much empirical
description of the differences between the two forms, although I've
written quite a bit on that subject, most of which you have studiously
ignored.
But now that you have clarified your interest in this topic, let's
continue the discussion. I'm very interested to hear your detailed
description of the "most telling differences between the two" forms.
Before you rush off to "part two," in other words, perhaps we could
finish dealing with "Part 1."
Just what are the differences, in your own words, between forms of the
two "signatures." I mean, something beyond "both are Secretary but one
is more "cursive" -- ie less italic -- than the other."
Tom Reedy
> Hi Tom.
>
> Much that has needed to be said in response to your new thread has
> already been said by KC and Mouse.
>
> KC has given some choice excerpts illustrating how you tend to respond
> when you evidently feel threatened.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/humanitie...61d982bf4dd43c2
>
>
> And Mouse has exposed your habit of very carefully amending the
> comments of other posters so as to make your own positions seem more
> credible than they actually were and thereby attempt to create a false
> impression about the actual history of an exchange.
You're the person who tried to create a false impression by trying to
reframe the comments you reiterated more than one.
> For instance, on July 9 you summarized the state of the debate this
> way:
>
>> Yes, they are, aren't they? Contrary to your contention that "'Cursive'
>> is
>> an utterly anachronistic term that would not be used by anyone who is
>> even
>> minimally schooled in the history of English handwriting."
>
>
> Lynne replied:
>
> "Forgive me for butting in, Tom. But you have left out the most
> important part of the quote. Here is the relevant dialogue:
>
> Roger: In general, the forms of B are secretary and the forms of C are
> italic.
>
> Tom: Actually, I would say the forms of B are cursive, while the forms
> of
> C are printed. And the s of B is italic.
>
> [You were using the terms cursive and printed to define hands.
Let's try a little English lesson, shall we?
Look at my statement.
What do I say is cursive?
"The forms of B."
One specific example of a signature.
Do you know the difference between "the forms of B" and a definition of a
script?
> The fact
> that you started with "Actually" shows you were disagreeing with his
> defining terms for the signatures. The fact that you then said the s of
>
> B was italic meant that you were adding an extra term to your defining
> terms of cursive and printed.
It means I was pointing out a letter that was in a different script than the
rest of the signature, because you brought up the term Italic.
> So your meaning was quite clear]
Apparently not to you. But of course, we don't expect too much underdtanding
on your part.
> Roger: "Cursive" is an utterly anachronistic term that would not be
> used by anyone who is even minimally schooled in the history of English
>
> handwriting. *The two relevant terms are secretary (also known as
> "English") and italic.*
>
> He was saying that the word cursive was anachronistic (it is) and would
> never be used to define writing hands in the early seventeenth century,
> as you had done, because the two terms used for documents such as the
> ones you were looking at were secretary and italic."
>
>
> For some reason you seem to feel, Tom, that your argument depends on
> what you call "judicious editing" of your adversary.
>
> Perhaps you felt it would be productive to prolong this lengthy and
> detailed exchange over whether or not the word "cursive," in the
> manner in which you used it in your original response, was relevant to
> the topic at hand, rather than dealing with the substance of what I
> have written about the differences between the two hands.
>
> But, having listened to the evolution of your argument for several
> days, I see that you have arrived at a credible after- the-fact defense
> of your position.
>
> Your point now seems to be that both words should be classified as
> being in the Secretary hand but that one is more cursive in character
> than the other. Is that it?
Yes, just as I clarified on July 6, and again the next day when it bacame
clear to me that Lynne misunderstood my point, which her reply made clear
that she did misunderstand it, even though she said she didn't.
Bottom line: if you thought I was defining the script by using the term
cursive, you misunderstood my point. which is why I clarified it on July 6
and again on July 7.
>
> Of course, we shouldn't forget to mention that you also said at one
> point that only one of the two signatures should have any evidentiary
> value, which seems to imply that you believe that only one is in the
> hand of the Bard,
AntiStratfordians are good at reading people's minds.
> but for the moment I'll forget about that and accept
> this most recent revision of your position as at least plausibly
> coherent in and of itself.
>
> In fact, if you'd just have said that week ago
Well, it was six days ago. I realize that's not quite a week, but it's
close.
> you would have spared
> yourself and everyone else a great of confusion.
I'm not the one confused.
> But I realize that
> like the rest of us, it sometimes takes you a while to get your own
> position figured out.
>
> And while I have no beef with this, I must admit that I do often find
> the evolution of your thinking difficult to follow since you seem to
> have a habit of omitting many of the most critical bits until they get
> pointed out by others.
>
> For example, in response to Mouse pointing out that you had quoted me
> out of context, and explaining the original context, you countered with
> your own accusation:
>
> "You left out something, Lynne, the part where I said: I might should
> have
> said one looks cursive and the other looks like a set hand (instead of
> print), but all the forms of both signatures, except for the long s,
> look to
> me to be English secretary.
>
> In case you don't remember, it was the July 6 post in which I said he
> had a
> good point when he pointed out that changing signatures over time would
> not
> account for the variations between the two Blackfriars signatures."
>
>
> When I first read this I admit I was more than a bit confused. First of
> all, I couldn't understand what your second paragraph had to do with
> the first.
It didn't have anything to do wqith it. It was just to mark the message in
which I said it.
> To say the least, the logical connection is not clear: the
> first paragraph is about how Lynne supposedly didn't represent your
> words completely, and the second is about how you had agreed with me on
> an apparently unrelated point.
>
> More importantly, it occurred to me that while you may have admitted on
> July 6 that I had made a valid point about the dating of the
> Blackfriars deeds (par 2), it was not until July 9, four days after the
> original post in question, that you posted your statement about what
> you should have said on July 5 (par 1).
I'm afraid you need to change brands of crack.
>
> I wondered why you remembered the date in a case in which it was
> irrelevant and forgot it in another that was vital to the credibility
> of your accusation, when anyone who knew the actual sequence of events
> could see that the two paragraphs were out of chronological order. Then
> I remembered that most people would not know the actual sequence of
> events.
>
> It was especially confusing when you used the passive construction "In
> case you don't remember, it was the July 6 post." On first reading, it
> seemed like the antecedent of "it" was the quotation from the previous
> paragraph, but then when I read to the end of the sentence I realized
> you were talking about something else altogether and that "it" couldn't
> refer to the previous quotation since you wrote those words on July 9,
> not only July 6. All very puzzling.
Your detective skilss are on a par with the scholarly skills.
I'll make it real simple for you, so that even you can work through it.
Go to Google groups. Go to humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare.
Look in the thread Robert Detobel Deconstructed.
Find my post of July 6, 2006, at 4:27 p.m.
Found it? It begins by quoting you, " Hi Tom, As I mentioned I'm trying
very hard to stay focused on some important projects outside hlas, but
Lynne asked me to take a look at your post and respond to it, so here are a
few thoughts."
And then I reply, "And I'm just replying with a few thoughts, cos I've got a
lot to do, too."
Right after I post links to some cursive from Dianne Tillotson's site, I
write, "I might should have said one looks cursive and the other looks like
a set hand (instead of print), but all the forms of both signatures, except
for the long s, look to me to be English secretary."
Still with me?
Now go all the way down the post. Click on "Read more."
Now scroll all the way down, almost to the end.
I quote you: "That's true, but B and C are both from 1612, so you can hardly
invoke that as an explanation." (You';re replying to my observation that
handwriting changes over time.)
I say: "Good point."
See how easy that was?
We just worked together to prove that you're full of shit.
But that's not news to anybody.
>
> But, be that as it may, since Lynne was not claiming to represent your
> July 9 remarks in her response to you, I don't see how any reasonable
> person can hold her accountable for "leaving something out." See my
> point?
The only point I see here is that you're a moron who can't read dates.
You're gulity of being a pompous ass and not knowing what you were talking
about.
> I apologize if anyone was confused by
> my stubbornness. You, on the other hand, are guilty of changing your
> story a half dozen times without admitting it.
I dobut that very many people on this newsgroup see it that way, because it
wasn't what I did.
You, on the other hand, tried to bend your words and went so far as to
insert your own definition in my statement to try to make it appear that
what you think I said was what I said.
>
> So let's take stock, shall we?
>
> You now claim that
>
> "we were not "defining hands." We were talking about the
> differences between two specific signatures."
>
> I'll leave aside the question of what you were doing.
>
> But please don't speak for me or try to tell Lynne what I was doing.
> What I was doing was responding to your apparent attempt to displace
> the correct copybook terms, Secretary and Italic, with two terms of
> doubtful validity, "cursive" and "print."
>
> I still have yet to hear you acknowledge that one reason the term
> "cursive" is a bad word choice is that it does have a technical,
> definitional meaning in modern handwriting analysis, while it does
> *not* in the early modern period.
Well, you'd better straighten out all the other paleographers in the world,
then.
> Moreover, the fact that you
> juxtaposed this word with "print" reinforces the anachronistic
> character of your original formulation, since in modern parlance that
> word is the copybook antonym of cursive.
Right. It means "not cursive." I'm glad you've finally exhibited some
knowledge here, since I know you've been working on this message for days to
try to strike the right tone.
> Surely it is understandable
> that one might over-react to your (now retracted)
Where did I retract anything? Can't you write a simple newsgroup message
without being dishonest? Apparently not.
> attempt to replace
> ("Actually..." you wrote) two technically correct Copybook terms with
> two that are anachronistic and are not used to describe copybook forms.
>
>
> But all that is water under the bridge if you now say that what you
> should have said is that both words were in a Secretary hand. I might
> even have to agree with you on that, although I would say, as I said a
> week ago, that the forms of C are much more italic
"Much more italic" does not Italic make. Especially since, as I pointed out,
both signatures have an italic s.
> than are those of B,
> while seem to prefer putting it that the forms of B are more cursive
> than the forms of C.
>
> Either way it sounds to me like two different ways to skin a Texas
> orange, so I'm left puzzled what all the heat has been about.
>
>
> "I was pointing out the most
> telling differences of the forms between the two."
>
>
> This is a curious new claim.
>
> Where in any of your posts have you "pointed out the most telling
> differences of the forms between the two"? Perhaps I missed it. What I
> have read is numerous posts in which you engage in terminological
> disputes and creative ad hominems. I haven't read much empirical
> description of the differences between the two forms, although I've
> written quite a bit on that subject, most of which you have studiously
> ignored.
>
> But now that you have clarified your interest in this topic, let's
> continue the discussion. I'm very interested to hear your detailed
> description of the "most telling differences between the two" forms.
>
> Before you rush off to "part two," in other words, perhaps we could
> finish dealing with "Part 1."
Roger, wake up! Part 1 is done. You lost. Deal with it. Try to learn some
humility. Don't you ever get tired of your smug condescension? You're not
really as smart as you think you are. None of us are.
TR
KCL
Very good.
>
> Look at my statement.
>
> What do I say is cursive?
>
> "The forms of B."
>
> One specific example of a signature.
>
> Do you know the difference between "the forms of B" and a definition of a
> script?
>
>
> > The fact
> > that you started with "Actually" shows you were disagreeing with his
> > defining terms for the signatures. The fact that you then said the s of
> >
> > B was italic meant that you were adding an extra term to your defining
> > terms of cursive and printed.
>
> It means I was pointing out a letter that was in a different script than the
> rest of the signature, because you brought up the term Italic.
>
> > So your meaning was quite clear]
>
> Apparently not to you. But of course, we don't expect too much underdtanding
> on your part.
Typos don't count, of course. Not around here.
Hmm. I would have said 'I'm not the one who's confused' or 'I'm not the
confused one.' Perhaps Lynne could advise us about your locution here.
Again, typos don't count.
>
> > To say the least, the logical connection is not clear: the
> > first paragraph is about how Lynne supposedly didn't represent your
> > words completely, and the second is about how you had agreed with me on
> > an apparently unrelated point.
> >
> > More importantly, it occurred to me that while you may have admitted on
> > July 6 that I had made a valid point about the dating of the
> > Blackfriars deeds (par 2), it was not until July 9, four days after the
> > original post in question, that you posted your statement about what
> > you should have said on July 5 (par 1).
>
> I'm afraid you need to change brands of crack.
Hmm. Change brands? This is unclear. Perhaps you meant 'get off
crack.' But perhaps you felt that would be too rude.
>
> >
> > I wondered why you remembered the date in a case in which it was
> > irrelevant and forgot it in another that was vital to the credibility
> > of your accusation, when anyone who knew the actual sequence of events
> > could see that the two paragraphs were out of chronological order. Then
> > I remembered that most people would not know the actual sequence of
> > events.
> >
> > It was especially confusing when you used the passive construction "In
> > case you don't remember, it was the July 6 post." On first reading, it
> > seemed like the antecedent of "it" was the quotation from the previous
> > paragraph, but then when I read to the end of the sentence I realized
> > you were talking about something else altogether and that "it" couldn't
> > refer to the previous quotation since you wrote those words on July 9,
> > not only July 6. All very puzzling.
>
> Your detective skilss are on a par with the scholarly skills.
Typos don't count, but I should tell you that when I first read this I
thought you'd written 'detective skiis.' I was trying to picture those
for awhile.
>
> I'll make it real simple for you, so that even you can work through it.
O dear. Well, this is elementary. At this point, the question you
posed earlier: "Let's try a little English lesson, shall we?" is
answered negatively.
O dear. This is undoubtedly English, but of the ruder sort, unless you
are suggesting that our man RS is "a variety of salmander" (meaning #1
per OED), recalling Nelson's wite-heringes for Mr. Wytheringes.
If you are drawing the conclusion that he is (meaning #2) "one of the
highest class of feeble-minded; an adult person having a mental age of
between eight and twelve" then you are certainly being rude. Also,
despite your argument here, you know better, thus your statement is
mischievous as well as rude.
But it is English.
It seems you are in agreement here: each thinks the other is guilty.
Insofar as everyone is guilty of something, perhaps this is the
greatest moment of accord possible.
This is English, but it is imprecise. Something has been lost, but I
would say it is the attention of most readers.
Deal with it. Try to learn some
> humility. Don't you ever get tired of your smug condescension? You're not
> really as smart as you think you are. None of us are.
It is undoubtedly true that many of us think ourselves smarter than we
actually are, and you express this in perfectly good English. Not being
"really as smart" and being "a moron" are quite different. I think you
should reconsider the latter. Remember, Tom, and I say this in a
friendly way, the epithet you toss at someone else cannot help but be a
reflection, and will come back to haunt you as sure as the night
follows the day.
Best wishes,
KC
Tom Reedy
news:1152711785.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>> "ben-Jonson" <stritm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1152667178.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>
> Typos don't count, of course. Not around here.
A good thnig, too.
<snip>
>> >
>> > In fact, if you'd just have said that week ago
>>
>> Well, it was six days ago. I realize that's not quite a week, but it's
>> close.
>>
>> > you would have spared
>> > yourself and everyone else a great of confusion.
>>
>> I'm not the one confused.
>
> Hmm. I would have said 'I'm not the one who's confused' or 'I'm not the
> confused one.' Perhaps Lynne could advise us about your locution here.
The sentence is grammatically identical to your second example. (Although I
*was* confused about the date yesterday; it was five days, not six.)
I was a journalist so long that even now I tend to drop conjunctions such as
"who's" and "that." I call that newspaperese.
<snip>
>> >
>> > More importantly, it occurred to me that while you may have admitted on
>> > July 6 that I had made a valid point about the dating of the
>> > Blackfriars deeds (par 2), it was not until July 9, four days after the
>> > original post in question, that you posted your statement about what
>> > you should have said on July 5 (par 1).
>>
>> I'm afraid you need to change brands of crack.
>
> Hmm. Change brands? This is unclear. Perhaps you meant 'get off
> crack.' But perhaps you felt that would be too rude.
No, I meant he should probably change to a brand that was not so corrosive
to his metal faculties. It's a sarcasm. I don't really believe he uses
crack. I know what an English professor earns.
>> >
>> > I wondered why you remembered the date in a case in which it was
>> > irrelevant and forgot it in another that was vital to the credibility
>> > of your accusation, when anyone who knew the actual sequence of events
>> > could see that the two paragraphs were out of chronological order. Then
>> > I remembered that most people would not know the actual sequence of
>> > events.
>> >
>> > It was especially confusing when you used the passive construction "In
>> > case you don't remember, it was the July 6 post." On first reading, it
>> > seemed like the antecedent of "it" was the quotation from the previous
>> > paragraph, but then when I read to the end of the sentence I realized
>> > you were talking about something else altogether and that "it" couldn't
>> > refer to the previous quotation since you wrote those words on July 9,
>> > not only July 6. All very puzzling.
>>
>> Your detective skilss are on a par with the scholarly skills.
>
> Typos don't count, but I should tell you that when I first read this I
> thought you'd written 'detective skiis.' I was trying to picture those
> for awhile.
>>
>> I'll make it real simple for you, so that even you can work through it.
>
> O dear. Well, this is elementary. At this point, the question you
> posed earlier: "Let's try a little English lesson, shall we?" is
> answered negatively.
It is common vernacular.
Well, yes, but that's the point. Not the main point, but a point.
<snip>
>> >
>> > Do early modern paleographers use the term "cursive" in a
>> > descriptive sense? Of course! Should I have worded my response to you
>> > more carefully? Of course! I'm guilty of uncritically adopting a
>> > terminology that you established and assuming that you would continue
>> > to use it in the original sense.
>>
>> You're gulity of being a pompous ass and not knowing what you were
>> talking
>> about.
>>
>> > I apologize if anyone was confused by
>> > my stubbornness. You, on the other hand, are guilty of changing your
>> > story a half dozen times without admitting it.
>
> It seems you are in agreement here: each thinks the other is guilty.
> Insofar as everyone is guilty of something, perhaps this is the
> greatest moment of accord possible.
Katharine Kafka, eh?
<snip>
>>
>> Roger, wake up! Part 1 is done. You lost.
>
> This is English, but it is imprecise. Something has been lost, but I
> would say it is the attention of most readers.
One could hardly blame them. Few things are as boring as a hashed over "I
said this, you said that" conversation. But that's one of the hazards of
newsgroups. Like academic politics, the level of invective is so high
because the stakes are so low.
> Deal with it. Try to learn some
>> humility. Don't you ever get tired of your smug condescension? You're not
>> really as smart as you think you are. None of us are.
>
> It is undoubtedly true that many of us think ourselves smarter than we
> actually are, and you express this in perfectly good English.
Thank you. I have never met a preson who thought he or she was dumber than
they actually were.
> Not being
> "really as smart" and being "a moron" are quite different. I think you
> should reconsider the latter. Remember, Tom, and I say this in a
> friendly way, the epithet you toss at someone else cannot help but be a
> reflection, and will come back to haunt you as sure as the night
> follows the day.
I agree that people who talk down to others and who question the honesty of
others should expect consequences. Luckily for Roger, the consequences on a
newsgroup are minimal at most. With any luck, we learn lessons cheaply and
have an entertainling time as well.
TR
>
> Best wishes,
> KC
Art Neuendorffer
>> Your detective skilss are on a par with the scholarly skills.
------------------------------------------------------------
Skill, n. [Icel. *SKIL* a distinction, discernment; akin to skilja to
separate, divide, distinguish, Sw. skilja,. skille to separate, skiel
reason, right, justice, Sw. sk[aum]l reason, Lith. skelli to cleave.]
1. Discrimination; judgment; propriety; reason; cause. [Obs.] --Shak.
"As it was skill and right." --Chaucer.
For great skill is, he prove that he wrought. --Chaucer.
2. Knowledge; understanding. [Obsoles.]
That by his fellowship he color might Both his estate
and love from skill of any wight. --Spenser.
Nor want we skill or art. --Milton.
3. The familiar knowledge of any art or science, united with readiness
and dexterity in execution or performance, or in the application of the
art or science to practical purposes; power to discern and execute;
ability to perceive and perform; expertness; aptitude; as, the skill
of a mathematician, physician, surgeon, mechanic, etc.
Phocion, . . . by his great wisdom and skill at negotiations,
diverted Alexander from the conquest of Athens. --Swift.
Where patience her sweet skill imparts. --Keble.
4. Display of art; exercise of ability; contrivance; address. [Obs.]
Richard . . . by a thousand princely skills, gathering
so much corn as if he meant not to return. --Fuller.
---------------Â------------------------------Â----------
KCL wrote:
>Typos don't count, but I should tell you that when I first read this
>I thought you'd written 'detective skiis.' I was trying to picture
> those for awhile.
http://www.recommendedbuys.co.uk/images/inspectorgadget-volumetwo.gif
---------------Â------------------------------Â----------
. King Henry VI, Part ii Act 3, Scene 1
.
YORK: IT SKILLS NOT greatly who impugns our DOOM.
-----------------------------------------------------
. The Taming of the Shrew Act 3, Scene 2
.
TRANIO: I am to get A MAN, -- whatE'ER he be,
. IT SKILLS NOT MUCH. we'll fit him to our turn,
------------------------------------------------------
. Twelfth Night Act 5, Scene 1
.
CLOWN: TRUELY Madam, he holds Belzebub at the staues end as
well as A MAN in his case may do: has heere writ A LETTER
. to YOU, I should haue giuen't YOU to day morning.
. But as a madmans Epistles are no Gospels,
. so IT SKILLES NOT MUCH when they are DEliUER'D.
.
Ol. Open't, and read it.
.
Clo. Looke then to be well edified,
. when THE FOOLE DEliUERS the Madman.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Mouse
> "KCL" <dial...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1152711785.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >> "ben-Jonson" <stritm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1152667178.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Typos don't count, of course. Not around here.
Depends what kind of typos they are, and who's making them.
>
> A good thnig, too.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >
> >> > In fact, if you'd just have said that week ago
> >>
> >> Well, it was six days ago. I realize that's not quite a week, but it's
> >> close.
> >>
> >> > you would have spared
> >> > yourself and everyone else a great of confusion.
> >>
> >> I'm not the one confused.
> >
> > Hmm. I would have said 'I'm not the one who's confused' or 'I'm not the
> > confused one.' Perhaps Lynne could advise us about your locution here.
>
> The sentence is grammatically identical to your second example. (Although I
> *was* confused about the date yesterday; it was five days, not six.)
>
> I was a journalist so long that even now I tend to drop conjunctions such as
> "who's" and "that." I call that newspaperese.
I call it bad English, somewhat egregious if you're pointing out
someone else's lack of English skills or skilss or even detective skis.
Are there such things as detective skis? Dr. Webb will know.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >
> >> > More importantly, it occurred to me that while you may have admitted on
> >> > July 6 that I had made a valid point about the dating of the
> >> > Blackfriars deeds (par 2), it was not until July 9, four days after the
> >> > original post in question, that you posted your statement about what
> >> > you should have said on July 5 (par 1).
> >>
> >> I'm afraid you need to change brands of crack.
> >
> > Hmm. Change brands? This is unclear. Perhaps you meant 'get off
> > crack.' But perhaps you felt that would be too rude.
>
> No, I meant he should probably change to a brand that was not so corrosive
> to his metal faculties. It's a sarcasm. I don't really believe he uses
> crack. I know what an English professor earns.
Metal faculties? You think he has a metal plate in his skull? Sorry to
disappoint you. He doesn't take crack either.
>
> >> >
> >> > I wondered why you remembered the date in a case in which it was
> >> > irrelevant and forgot it in another that was vital to the credibility
> >> > of your accusation, when anyone who knew the actual sequence of events
> >> > could see that the two paragraphs were out of chronological order. Then
> >> > I remembered that most people would not know the actual sequence of
> >> > events.
> >> >
> >> > It was especially confusing when you used the passive construction "In
> >> > case you don't remember, it was the July 6 post." On first reading, it
> >> > seemed like the antecedent of "it" was the quotation from the previous
> >> > paragraph, but then when I read to the end of the sentence I realized
> >> > you were talking about something else altogether and that "it" couldn't
> >> > refer to the previous quotation since you wrote those words on July 9,
> >> > not only July 6. All very puzzling.
> >>
> >> Your detective skilss are on a par with the scholarly skills.
> >
> > Typos don't count, but I should tell you that when I first read this I
> > thought you'd written 'detective skiis.' I was trying to picture those
> > for awhile.
> >>
> >> I'll make it real simple for you, so that even you can work through it.
> >
> > O dear. Well, this is elementary. At this point, the question you
> > posed earlier: "Let's try a little English lesson, shall we?" is
> > answered negatively.
>
> It is common vernacular.
Which has little to do with formal English skills.
It's not a very good point at all, if you're trying to have an
intellectual conversation. I always think that invective/insult is to
intellectual exchange what mustard/ketchup is to lemon meringue pie.
But perhaps you enjoy it that way.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >
> >> > Do early modern paleographers use the term "cursive" in a
> >> > descriptive sense? Of course! Should I have worded my response to you
> >> > more carefully? Of course! I'm guilty of uncritically adopting a
> >> > terminology that you established and assuming that you would continue
> >> > to use it in the original sense.
> >>
> >> You're gulity of being a pompous ass and not knowing what you were
> >> talking
> >> about.
> >>
> >> > I apologize if anyone was confused by
> >> > my stubbornness. You, on the other hand, are guilty of changing your
> >> > story a half dozen times without admitting it.
> >
> > It seems you are in agreement here: each thinks the other is guilty.
> > Insofar as everyone is guilty of something, perhaps this is the
> > greatest moment of accord possible.
>
> Katharine Kafka, eh?
>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >> Roger, wake up! Part 1 is done. You lost.
> >
> > This is English, but it is imprecise. Something has been lost, but I
> > would say it is the attention of most readers.
>
> One could hardly blame them. Few things are as boring as a hashed over "I
> said this, you said that" conversation. But that's one of the hazards of
> newsgroups. Like academic politics, the level of invective is so high
> because the stakes are so low.
Roger gave you a big chance to end it. He actually apologised for his
imprecision, something he would have been unlikely to do several years
ago. He stepped up to the plate. You could have hit a home run had you
been generous. Unfortunately you broke your bat. Of course, I would
never suggest that you're batty.
>
> > Deal with it. Try to learn some
> >> humility. Don't you ever get tired of your smug condescension? You're not
> >> really as smart as you think you are. None of us are.
> >
> > It is undoubtedly true that many of us think ourselves smarter than we
> > actually are, and you express this in perfectly good English.
>
> Thank you. I have never met a preson who thought he or she was dumber than
> they actually were.
[Correction] person who thought that he or she was dumber than he or
she actually was? In fact, I think some people go away from HLAS
believing precisely that.
>
> > Not being
> > "really as smart" and being "a moron" are quite different. I think you
> > should reconsider the latter. Remember, Tom, and I say this in a
> > friendly way, the epithet you toss at someone else cannot help but be a
> > reflection, and will come back to haunt you as sure as the night
> > follows the day.
>
> I agree that people who talk down to others and who question the honesty of
> others should expect consequences.
Roger, to do him credit, did not use insult/ad hominem/invective to get
his point across. That puts him ahead of the game. Every time you
answer the way you did, you lose points. Come on, Tom, I happen to know
you're a very nice guy. You don't need to make this kind of response to
him.
>Luckily for Roger, the consequences on a
> newsgroup are minimal at most.
More lucky for you.
>With any luck, we learn lessons cheaply and
> have an entertainling time as well.
Is that a kind of apology? I'm sure he'll take it.
Again, apologies to all for any of my own typos, although I'm sure they
can't be any worse than Tom's. And yes, I know some of my replies, in
the interests of brevity, were sentence fragments. I can formalize them
into sentences should anyone wish it.
Love,
Mouse
>
> TR
>
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > KC
Tom Reedy
KCL
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> > "KCL" <dial...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1152711785.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > > Tom Reedy wrote:
> > >> "ben-Jonson" <stritm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:1152667178.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > Typos don't count, of course. Not around here.
>
> Depends what kind of typos they are, and who's making them.
> >
> > A good thnig, too.
Haha. Thnaks.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> >
> > >> > In fact, if you'd just have said that week ago
> > >>
> > >> Well, it was six days ago. I realize that's not quite a week, but it's
> > >> close.
> > >>
> > >> > you would have spared
> > >> > yourself and everyone else a great of confusion.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not the one confused.
> > >
> > > Hmm. I would have said 'I'm not the one who's confused' or 'I'm not the
> > > confused one.' Perhaps Lynne could advise us about your locution here.
> >
> > The sentence is grammatically identical to your second example.
Yes, but...is it as *good*? :)
(Although I
> > *was* confused about the date yesterday; it was five days, not six.)
> >
> > I was a journalist so long that even now I tend to drop conjunctions such as
> > "who's" and "that." I call that newspaperese.
>
> I call it bad English, somewhat egregious if you're pointing out
> someone else's lack of English skills or skilss or even detective skis.
> Are there such things as detective skis? Dr. Webb will know.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> >
> > >> > More importantly, it occurred to me that while you may have admitted on
> > >> > July 6 that I had made a valid point about the dating of the
> > >> > Blackfriars deeds (par 2), it was not until July 9, four days after the
> > >> > original post in question, that you posted your statement about what
> > >> > you should have said on July 5 (par 1).
> > >>
> > >> I'm afraid you need to change brands of crack.
> > >
> > > Hmm. Change brands? This is unclear. Perhaps you meant 'get off
> > > crack.' But perhaps you felt that would be too rude.
> >
> > No, I meant he should probably change to a brand that was not so corrosive
> > to his metal faculties. It's a sarcasm. I don't really believe he uses
> > crack. I know what an English professor earns.
>
> Metal faculties? You think he has a metal plate in his skull? Sorry to
> disappoint you. He doesn't take crack either.
'Corrosive metal.' Interesting.
Ja, achtung.
Here, here.
>
> >Luckily for Roger, the consequences on a
> > newsgroup are minimal at most.
>
> More lucky for you.
>
> >With any luck, we learn lessons cheaply and
> > have an entertainling time as well.
He who entertain Ling make his own luck.
>
> Is that a kind of apology? I'm sure he'll take it.
Ok, sorry about the fortune cookie.
>
> Again, apologies to all for any of my own typos, although I'm sure they
> can't be any worse than Tom's. And yes, I know some of my replies, in
> the interests of brevity, were sentence fragments. I can formalize them
> into sentences should anyone wish it.
I doubt it. I think we have to adapt to informality around here.
As ever,
KC
kenkap
its his signature? This is going round and round and I see you in an
ego frenzy because a very common sense position is laid out which when
stripped away you AGREE with, using different terminology for your own
convenience. Just like Ross and Dooley.
Ken
Tom Reedy
I was pointing out the differnece between what I siad and what he said I
said.
I said "the forms of B," he said I was defining a script.
> Are there such things as detective skis? Dr. Webb will know.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > More importantly, it occurred to me that while you may have admitted
>> >> > on
>> >> > July 6 that I had made a valid point about the dating of the
>> >> > Blackfriars deeds (par 2), it was not until July 9, four days after
>> >> > the
>> >> > original post in question, that you posted your statement about what
>> >> > you should have said on July 5 (par 1).
>> >>
>> >> I'm afraid you need to change brands of crack.
>> >
>> > Hmm. Change brands? This is unclear. Perhaps you meant 'get off
>> > crack.' But perhaps you felt that would be too rude.
>>
>> No, I meant he should probably change to a brand that was not so
>> corrosive
>> to his metal faculties. It's a sarcasm. I don't really believe he uses
>> crack. I know what an English professor earns.
>
> Metal faculties? You think he has a metal plate in his skull?
Hey, for all I know, that could be the cause of his problem!
Newsgroups have little to do with formal English skills also.
You don't use mustard or ketchup?
You know how you "step up to the plate?" You simply and concisely say
something like, "Yeah, well, OK, I was wrong about that. Now let's put it
behind us and discuss topic B."
Two sentences. But you have to be willing to admit you were wrong.
You don't write 3,000 words equivocating and trying to make it seem it's
really your opponent's fault that you made the error, and then accuse your
opponent of dishonesty because you incompetently misread the dates of his
posts.
All he did was dig his hole deeper.
> You could have hit a home run had you
> been generous. Unfortunately you broke your bat. Of course, I would
> never suggest that you're batty.
>
>>
>> > Deal with it. Try to learn some
>> >> humility. Don't you ever get tired of your smug condescension? You're
>> >> not
>> >> really as smart as you think you are. None of us are.
>> >
>> > It is undoubtedly true that many of us think ourselves smarter than we
>> > actually are, and you express this in perfectly good English.
>>
>> Thank you. I have never met a preson who thought he or she was dumber
>> than
>> they actually were.
>
> [Correction] person who thought that he or she was dumber than he or
> she actually was?
You forgot to correct my spelling.
> In fact, I think some people go away from HLAS
> believing precisely that.
>
>>
>> > Not being
>> > "really as smart" and being "a moron" are quite different. I think you
>> > should reconsider the latter. Remember, Tom, and I say this in a
>> > friendly way, the epithet you toss at someone else cannot help but be a
>> > reflection, and will come back to haunt you as sure as the night
>> > follows the day.
>>
>> I agree that people who talk down to others and who question the honesty
>> of
>> others should expect consequences.
>
> Roger, to do him credit, did not use insult/ad hominem/invective to get
> his point across. That puts him ahead of the game. Every time you
> answer the way you did, you lose points.
I can lose an infinite number of points and still win this one.
> Come on, Tom, I happen to know
> you're a very nice guy. You don't need to make this kind of response to
> him.
>
>>Luckily for Roger, the consequences on a
>> newsgroup are minimal at most.
>
> More lucky for you.
>
>>With any luck, we learn lessons cheaply and
>> have an entertainling time as well.
>
> Is that a kind of apology? I'm sure he'll take it.
No, it isn't.
> Again, apologies to all for any of my own typos, although I'm sure they
> can't be any worse than Tom's. And yes, I know some of my replies, in
> the interests of brevity, were sentence fragments. I can formalize them
> into sentences should anyone wish it.
OK, so now Roger has been defended by his two co-dependents. I'm sure he'll
take a couple of days to fine-tune his response to make the tone
appropriately devastating without using crude invective or profanity.
When it comes time to write the history of the antiStratfordian movement,
I'm sure the politeness award will go to the antiStratfordians. It still
won't be enough to win the debate, though. Truth is still required for that.
TR
Tom Reedy
> Mouse wrote:
>> Tom Reedy wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree that people who talk down to others and who question the
>> > honesty of
>> > others should expect consequences.
>>
>> Roger, to do him credit, did not use insult/ad hominem/invective to get
>> his point across. That puts him ahead of the game. Every time you
>> answer the way you did, you lose points. Come on, Tom, I happen to know
>> you're a very nice guy. You don't need to make this kind of response to
>> him.
>
> Here, here.
Where, where?
TR
Mouse
Waz no differnece.
>
> I said "the forms of B," he said I was defining a script.
>
> > Are there such things as detective skis? Dr. Webb will know.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > More importantly, it occurred to me that while you may have admitted
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > July 6 that I had made a valid point about the dating of the
> >> >> > Blackfriars deeds (par 2), it was not until July 9, four days after
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > original post in question, that you posted your statement about what
> >> >> > you should have said on July 5 (par 1).
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm afraid you need to change brands of crack.
> >> >
> >> > Hmm. Change brands? This is unclear. Perhaps you meant 'get off
> >> > crack.' But perhaps you felt that would be too rude.
> >>
> >> No, I meant he should probably change to a brand that was not so
> >> corrosive
> >> to his metal faculties. It's a sarcasm. I don't really believe he uses
> >> crack. I know what an English professor earns.
> >
> > Metal faculties? You think he has a metal plate in his skull?
>
> Hey, for all I know, that could be the cause of his problem!
Or yours! Maybe it's the reason your spelling is getting worse! I love
those exclamation marks, don't you? !!!
Really? Oh dear, and there was I posting in revised formal English most
of the time.
Nope, can't say I do. But my husband used to put sugar and cinnamon on
macaroni cheese till I told him I'd divorce him if he did it again.
Did you do that? Show me where.
>
> Two sentences. But you have to be willing to admit you were wrong.
Are you willing?
>
> You don't write 3,000 words equivocating and trying to make it seem it's
> really your opponent's fault that you made the error, and then accuse your
> opponent of dishonesty because you incompetently misread the dates of his
> posts.
Um, sorry, but you took out part of his post in the retelling, and
didn't add more of your own for at least a day, while not admitting
that's what you did. I'm really, really willing to drop this, very
tired from med treatment, how do you feel about dropping it?
>
> All he did was dig his hole deeper.
He's probably sleeping in it by now. What are you doing with the hole
you dug?
>
> > You could have hit a home run had you
> > been generous. Unfortunately you broke your bat. Of course, I would
> > never suggest that you're batty.
> >
> >>
> >> > Deal with it. Try to learn some
> >> >> humility. Don't you ever get tired of your smug condescension? You're
> >> >> not
> >> >> really as smart as you think you are. None of us are.
> >> >
> >> > It is undoubtedly true that many of us think ourselves smarter than we
> >> > actually are, and you express this in perfectly good English.
> >>
> >> Thank you. I have never met a preson who thought he or she was dumber
> >> than
> >> they actually were.
> >
> > [Correction] person who thought that he or she was dumber than he or
> > she actually was?
>
> You forgot to correct my spelling.
I thought I did. What did I miss? Certainly not "preson." I had one of
those for nine months, when I was pregnant with my first-born.
>
> > In fact, I think some people go away from HLAS
> > believing precisely that.
> >
> >>
> >> > Not being
> >> > "really as smart" and being "a moron" are quite different. I think you
> >> > should reconsider the latter. Remember, Tom, and I say this in a
> >> > friendly way, the epithet you toss at someone else cannot help but be a
> >> > reflection, and will come back to haunt you as sure as the night
> >> > follows the day.
> >>
> >> I agree that people who talk down to others and who question the honesty
> >> of
> >> others should expect consequences.
> >
> > Roger, to do him credit, did not use insult/ad hominem/invective to get
> > his point across. That puts him ahead of the game. Every time you
> > answer the way you did, you lose points.
>
> I can lose an infinite number of points and still win this one.
Uh-uh. You only think you can.
>
> > Come on, Tom, I happen to know
> > you're a very nice guy. You don't need to make this kind of response to
> > him.
> >
> >>Luckily for Roger, the consequences on a
> >> newsgroup are minimal at most.
> >
> > More lucky for you.
> >
> >>With any luck, we learn lessons cheaply and
> >> have an entertainling time as well.
> >
> > Is that a kind of apology? I'm sure he'll take it.
>
> No, it isn't.
Pity 'tis, 'tis true.
>
> > Again, apologies to all for any of my own typos, although I'm sure they
> > can't be any worse than Tom's. And yes, I know some of my replies, in
> > the interests of brevity, were sentence fragments. I can formalize them
> > into sentences should anyone wish it.
>
> OK, so now Roger has been defended by his two co-dependents. I'm sure he'll
> take a couple of days to fine-tune his response to make the tone
> appropriately devastating without using crude invective or profanity.
I doubt it. There wasn't much content in your post to respond to. KC
and I are just playing with you. Shall we play with my sons' train set
later? I still have it downstairs.
>
> When it comes time to write the history of the antiStratfordian movement,
> I'm sure the politeness award will go to the antiStratfordians. It still
> won't be enough to win the debate, though. Truth is still required for that.
Yes, Tom, truth is required. Are you suggesting I'm not truthful?
Love and stuff,
That lying (down) Mouse
ben-Jonson
Right you are, Mouse.
I've got to get back to focusing on some important work (MND, Temp,
etc), as you know, and you and KC (and Ken) have done a fine job of
pointing out the fallacies of Tom's invective and poking fun at the
crescendo of his desperation to always be right. He seems to be so
intent on "winning" that he finds it difficult (I was going to say,
"impossible," but then I reflected on the recent history of HLAS and
decided that "difficult" was probably a safter adjective) of ever
acknowledging that he might be even partly responsible for creating
confusion or that he might (God forbid) have something to learn from
his exchanges. Its pitiful when someone thinks he knows so much that
he has nothing to learn from others and illustrates his own
superiority by such free recourse to gratuitous insults. Personally, I
don't have any more time for it. Trying to research just when and how
Tom has shifted his position can, as you know, absorb a great deal of
concentrated attention. And anything I could add would be
anti-climactic to your wit.
> >
> > When it comes time to write the history of the antiStratfordian movement,
> > I'm sure the politeness award will go to the antiStratfordians. It still
> > won't be enough to win the debate, though. Truth is still required for that.
>
> Yes, Tom, truth is required. Are you suggesting I'm not truthful?
I'm glad you had the chance to answer that one!
Tom Reedy
>
> Tom Reedy wrote:
<snip>
>> I was pointing out the differnece between what I siad and what he said I
>> said.
>
> Waz no differnece.
Wash tew!
<snip>
>> >> No, I meant he should probably change to a brand that was not so
>> >> corrosive
>> >> to his metal faculties. It's a sarcasm. I don't really believe he uses
>> >> crack. I know what an English professor earns.
>> >
>> > Metal faculties? You think he has a metal plate in his skull?
>>
>> Hey, for all I know, that could be the cause of his problem!
>
> Or yours! Maybe it's the reason your spelling is getting worse!
I'm seriously starting to wonder if I'm getting Lipitor head.
>I love
> those exclamation marks, don't you? !!!
Yes!!!!!!!!!! I do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<snip>
>> You don't use mustard or ketchup?
>
> Nope, can't say I do. But my husband used to put sugar and cinnamon on
> macaroni cheese till I told him I'd divorce him if he did it again.
Lynne! What do you put on your hot dogs and french fries?
<snip>
>> > Roger gave you a big chance to end it. He actually apologised for his
>> > imprecision, something he would have been unlikely to do several years
>> > ago. He stepped up to the plate.
>>
>> You know how you "step up to the plate?" You simply and concisely say
>> something like, "Yeah, well, OK, I was wrong about that. Now let's put it
>> behind us and discuss topic B."
>
> Did you do that? Show me where.
In a post to Volker Oct. 4, 1999, on the Oxfordian Test thread:
VM: No, I wasn't-- you're wrong.
Me: You're right, Volker. I jumped into the thread before i knew what I was
talking about.
And later on down the thread:
VM: I'm not the liar here-- look at the first point of this msg to find the
liar, if any.
Me: You're right, I'm wrong.
In a post to Bob Grummen Feb 14, 2002, on the My Letter to the Times thread:
BG: By the way, did I get his name wrong or you?
Me: I got it wrong.
In a post to Roger Parisious Aug. 5, 2003, on the Dr. Hall takes note of a
Poet thread:
RP: I am quite certain that Pat agrees with me and three of the four
academic editors of the George-a-Greene text on this.
Me: You know you're probably right? Pat's argument had nothing to do with
whether Robert Greene wrote George-a-Greene. It had to do with the evidence
for Greene being a minister and I conflated the two.
But then I pulled a Roger S. and made an excuse that blamed Roger P for my
mistake: You're so often wrong I just automatically assumed you were wrong
on this point, too.
Several times I admitted I was wrong in my exchanges with Pat Dooley, and a
couple of weeks ago I admitted I was wrong about something, but I can't
think what it is right now.
>> Two sentences. But you have to be willing to admit you were wrong.
>
> Are you willing?
If I'm wrong, I am. At least, eventually.
>> You don't write 3,000 words equivocating and trying to make it seem it's
>> really your opponent's fault that you made the error, and then accuse
>> your
>> opponent of dishonesty because you incompetently misread the dates of his
>> posts.
>
> Um, sorry, but you took out part of his post in the retelling, and
> didn't add more of your own for at least a day, while not admitting
> that's what you did. I'm really, really willing to drop this, very
> tired from med treatment, how do you feel about dropping it?
Oh, I can keep this up indefinitely. It seems that I've got a quota of these
kinds of exchanges every so often, and perhaps I had a deficit that needed
to be filled.
At any rate, the way to drop something is to drop it, not try to get in the
last word.
<snip>
>> OK, so now Roger has been defended by his two co-dependents. I'm sure
>> he'll
>> take a couple of days to fine-tune his response to make the tone
>> appropriately devastating without using crude invective or profanity.
>
> I doubt it. There wasn't much content in your post to respond to. KC
> and I are just playing with you.
And what do you think I'm doing?
TR
Mouse
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1152731551....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I was pointing out the differnece between what I siad and what he said I
> >> said.
> >
> > Waz no differnece.
>
> Wash tew!
Wash knot.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >> No, I meant he should probably change to a brand that was not so
> >> >> corrosive
> >> >> to his metal faculties. It's a sarcasm. I don't really believe he uses
> >> >> crack. I know what an English professor earns.
> >> >
> >> > Metal faculties? You think he has a metal plate in his skull?
> >>
> >> Hey, for all I know, that could be the cause of his problem!
> >
> > Or yours! Maybe it's the reason your spelling is getting worse!
>
> I'm seriously starting to wonder if I'm getting Lipitor head.
Just worry if you go weak in the knees.
>
> >I love
> > those exclamation marks, don't you? !!!
>
> Yes!!!!!!!!!! I do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> <snip>
>
> >> You don't use mustard or ketchup?
> >
> > Nope, can't say I do. But my husband used to put sugar and cinnamon on
> > macaroni cheese till I told him I'd divorce him if he did it again.
>
> Lynne! What do you put on your hot dogs and french fries?
Today I had my first hot dog in about four years. I had relish. I would
have liked sauerkraut but there was none. I don't remember the last
time I had fries.
I meant, show me where you said you were wrong in your contretemps with
Roger. You did say something about having to be dragged kicking and
screaming to apologise when you might be wrong. Not sure those were the
exact words, but that was the gist.
>
>
>
> >> Two sentences. But you have to be willing to admit you were wrong.
> >
> > Are you willing?
>
> If I'm wrong, I am. At least, eventually.
Oh phew. Please do so before one of us dies (borrowed from Fawlty
Towers).
>
> >> You don't write 3,000 words equivocating and trying to make it seem it's
> >> really your opponent's fault that you made the error, and then accuse
> >> your
> >> opponent of dishonesty because you incompetently misread the dates of his
> >> posts.
> >
> > Um, sorry, but you took out part of his post in the retelling, and
> > didn't add more of your own for at least a day, while not admitting
> > that's what you did. I'm really, really willing to drop this, very
> > tired from med treatment, how do you feel about dropping it?
>
> Oh, I can keep this up indefinitely. It seems that I've got a quota of these
> kinds of exchanges every so often, and perhaps I had a deficit that needed
> to be filled.
>
> At any rate, the way to drop something is to drop it, not try to get in the
> last word.
O dear. I'm like the Energizer Bunny when I get challenges like that.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> OK, so now Roger has been defended by his two co-dependents. I'm sure
> >> he'll
> >> take a couple of days to fine-tune his response to make the tone
> >> appropriately devastating without using crude invective or profanity.
> >
> > I doubt it. There wasn't much content in your post to respond to. KC
> > and I are just playing with you.
>
> And what do you think I'm doing?
Avoiding saying you made a mistake?
Love,
Mouse
>
> TR
Tom Reedy
My remarks weren't specific to Roger. I've even said I was wrong before when
subsequent events proved me right!
You can't do it, can you?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> OK, so now Roger has been defended by his two co-dependents. I'm sure
>> >> he'll
>> >> take a couple of days to fine-tune his response to make the tone
>> >> appropriately devastating without using crude invective or profanity.
>> >
>> > I doubt it. There wasn't much content in your post to respond to. KC
>> > and I are just playing with you.
>>
>> And what do you think I'm doing?
>
> Avoiding saying you made a mistake?
The only mistake I made was trying to have a discussion with Roger
Stritmatter.
TR
>
> Love,
> Mouse
>>
>> TR
>
Tom Reedy
news:1152667178.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Just what are the differences, in your own words, between forms of the
> two "signatures." I mean, something beyond "both are Secretary but one
> is more "cursive" -- ie less italic -- than the other."
I agree with Sir Edward Maunde Thompson in his 1916 study, "Shakespeare's
Handwriting." I got his book down today for the first time in years and
thumbed through it. Here's what he says about the two signatures (you could
have knocked me over with a feather when I read it).
Page 7: In the case of the signature to the Blackfriars mortgage deed (No. 3
[we're calling it B]), the value of its evidence for determining the general
character of Shakespeare's handwriting is still further depreciated by the
writer's adoption (one might almost accuse him of a wilful perversity!) of
an unexpected style. No doubt having in his mind the difficulty he had on
the previous day in keeping strictly to the label of the purchase deed, he
now made sure of not transgressing by forming each of the letters of his
surname deliberately and separately (except the a and k, which are linked)
and by modifying their shapes from the usual cursive to a restrained and
formally set character.
Page 8: . . . while No. 2 [our C] affords a clue to the general character of
Shakespeare's handwriting, its testimony is marred by a certain restraint
imposed by its restriction on the limits of the label; and that No. 3 is
still less satisfactory in this respect owing to the deliberate and
uncursive style of the letters.
Note he says the signature in a set style has little evidentiary value. He
does not say that Shakespeare didn't write it, though, as you seemed to
think I was suggesting.
TR
Mouse
> >> >
> >> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> At any rate, the way to drop something is to drop it, not try to get in
> >> the
> >> last word.
> >
> > O dear. I'm like the Energizer Bunny when I get challenges like that.
>
> You can't do it, can you?
Nope.
L.
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> The only mistake I made was trying to have a discussion
> with Roger Stritmatter.
That's the problem when both sides start off assuming
that they know more than the other.
RS:
"3) In general, the forms of B are secretary and the
forms of C are italic.
A fair point, with which one may either agree or disagree.
TR:
"Actually, I would say the forms of B are cursive, while
the forms of C are printed. And the s of B is italic."
Also a fair point, which, knowing that Tom is fully aware
of the different types of writing at that time (Secretary
and Italic), I for one fully understood. Would have been
clearer if he had said "And the s of B is italic rather than
secretary" perhaps.
RS:
"Cursive" is an utterly anachronistic term that would not
be used by anyone who is even minimally schooled in the
history of English handwriting. The two relevant terms
are secretary (also known as "English") and italic.
Roger, on the other hand, assuming that Tom knew nothing
about the subject, corrected him. Unfortunately he chose
to do so in an insulting way, rather than simply check-
ing his understanding. (For example, how about: "Are you
suggesting that 'Cursive' is a third style, in addition to
the Secretary and Italic styles we have been discussing?
Because, if so, I think you are wrong").
TR:
"You're joking, right?", followed by some links to 2nd
and 8th century cursive writing.
Tom knew perfectly well that Roger had misunderstood, but
(presumably reacting to Roger's tone) preferred to use an
example quite irrelevant to this case to prove Roger's
*words* wrong, rather than to deal with the misunder-
standing itself.
And it's this simple exchange that has been boring the pants
off us the past week.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Mouse
> "ben-Jonson" <stritm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1152667178.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Just what are the differences, in your own words, between forms of the
> > two "signatures." I mean, something beyond "both are Secretary but one
> > is more "cursive" -- ie less italic -- than the other."
>
> I agree with Sir Edward Maunde Thompson in his 1916 study, "Shakespeare's
> Handwriting." I got his book down today for the first time in years and
> thumbed through it. Here's what he says about the two signatures (you could
> have knocked me over with a feather when I read it).
>
> Page 7: In the case of the signature to the Blackfriars mortgage deed (No. 3
> [we're calling it B]), the value of its evidence for determining the general
> character of Shakespeare's handwriting is still further depreciated by the
> writer's adoption (one might almost accuse him of a wilful perversity!) of
> an unexpected style. No doubt having in his mind the difficulty he had on
> the previous day in keeping strictly to the label of the purchase deed, he
> now made sure of not transgressing by forming each of the letters of his
> surname deliberately and separately (except the a and k, which are linked)
> and by modifying their shapes from the usual cursive to a restrained and
> formally set character.
I find this fascinating, Tom: "the writer's adoption (one might almost
accuse him of a wilful perversity) of an unexpected style...";
"modifying their shapes from the usual cursive to a restrained and
formally set character."
Leaving aside the fact that you clearly remembered what Maunde Thompson
had said from an earlier time you took him off the shelf, why is he
saying all this stuff here about sig B, and still maintaining it's
Shakespeare's signature? Shouldn't there be at least a small hint that
this signature might be by another writer? Oh, no, of course not, the
book is called Shakespeare's Handwriting. The sig couldn't possibly be
someone else. Thompson has precious little enough to play with as it
is. At least we can't accuse him of thinking outside the box--or rather
the tab.
Love,
Lynne
Tom Reedy
There are a lot of goofy statements from that era.
> Leaving aside the fact that you clearly remembered what Maunde Thompson
> had said from an earlier time you took him off the shelf,
I don't know that I did. except maybe subconsciously. It has been close to
10 years since I've read it.
> why is he
> saying all this stuff here about sig B, and still maintaining it's
> Shakespeare's signature? Shouldn't there be at least a small hint that
> this signature might be by another writer?
No, there's no reason to believe Shakespeare didn't write it. Thompson was
not an antiStratfordian.
> Oh, no, of course not, the
> book is called Shakespeare's Handwriting. The sig couldn't possibly be
> someone else. Thompson has precious little enough to play with as it
> is. At least we can't accuse him of thinking outside the box--or rather
> the tab.
Have you read the book? There's a modified version of it in Pollard's Hand D
book.
TR
kenkap
was
> not an antiStratfordian."
And Thompson's explanation, to use your terms, is "fantasy". But it
does show the depth of your denial to parade stuff like this out.
"Willful perversity of an unexpected stlyle". You havre to be kidding.
Hey I remember a statement once, something about "irrational thought
processes" and "sub reality...groups".
Join the club. You're really on a bender.
Ken
Excuse me, as I remember circular arguments by assertion are invalid.
Mouse
There are a lot of uninvestigated statements, that's for sure.
>
> > Leaving aside the fact that you clearly remembered what Maunde Thompson
> > had said from an earlier time you took him off the shelf,
>
> I don't know that I did. except maybe subconsciously. It has been close to
> 10 years since I've read it.
I once rewrote the whole of an e e cummings poem without realising. ;)
>
> > why is he
> > saying all this stuff here about sig B, and still maintaining it's
> > Shakespeare's signature? Shouldn't there be at least a small hint that
> > this signature might be by another writer?
>
> No, there's no reason to believe Shakespeare didn't write it. Thompson was
> not an antiStratfordian.
Do you mean if you're not a non-Strat, there's no reason to use your
brain or consider alternative explanations? I'm not saying he's wrong,
I'm just saying that he didn't even bring up the spectre of a different
signer, something I would do automatically with anyone if the sig was
so different from his usual practice, that's if he had a usual
practice, of course.
>
> > Oh, no, of course not, the
> > book is called Shakespeare's Handwriting. The sig couldn't possibly be
> > someone else. Thompson has precious little enough to play with as it
> > is. At least we can't accuse him of thinking outside the box--or rather
> > the tab.
>
> Have you read the book? There's a modified version of it in Pollard's Hand D
> book.
No, I haven't. Just getting back to reading. Your suggested Where Late
the Sweet Birds Sang arrived today. Will read it immediately after what
I'm reading now. Such a pleasure to read.
Thanks,
L.
jo...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
head. Why *assume* that a shift in penmanship indicates that a
signature is a forgery? Why wouldn't the interested party in a legal
agreement be the signatory? Why wouldn't the author Shakespeare be able
to alter his writing style at will? Why not accept that this position
is the simplest and likeliest and only move from it when there is clear
and unambiguous evidence to the contrary? The millions of happy
Stratfordians down the ages haven't all been fools blind to the
obvious. And the sacred truths are not only vouchsafed to the knowing
ones of "Oxfordianism".
Best wishes
John Andrews
kenkap
jo...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> Dear Ken, Oh dear, oh dear... yet again probability is turned on its
> head. Why *assume* that a shift in penmanship indicates that a
> signature is a forgery? Why wouldn't the interested party in a legal
> agreement be the signatory? Why wouldn't the author Shakespeare be able
> to alter his writing style at will? Why not accept that this position
> is the simplest and likeliest and only move from it when there is clear
> and unambiguous evidence to the contrary? The millions of happy
> Stratfordians down the ages haven't all been fools blind to the
> obvious. And the sacred truths are not only vouchsafed to the knowing
> ones of "Oxfordianism".
>
> Best wishes
>
> John Andrews
Dear, Dear John,
In my humble opinion if you had been half awake following the entire
discussion not only here but on "Detobel Deconstructed" and looked at
the numerous aspects of this argument in which my reply was framed, you
would understand your questions/answers make no sense.
"The millions of happy
> Stratfordians down the ages haven't all been fools blind to the
> obvious. "
I would dispute that in many cases and especially this one. Funeral
elegy, anyone?
Ken
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
have much evidentiary value seems to me to have lots of evidentiary
value as to how its writer formed signatures: by sometimes going away
from cursive, for instance. In saying that, I realize I'm probably
missing one or more points. Hence, the preceding "obtuse." But the
lack of evidentiary value has been bugging me since Tom introduced it.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
news:1152839451.8...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Evidentiary value as far as determining what Shakespeare's normal hand was
like.
TR
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Okay. I don't agree it has no evidentiary value for the above, but it
all hinges on what one considers "evidentiary" to mean. My meaning is
just looser than yours. It seems to me anything in Shakespeare's hand
has to indicate to some degree what his normal hand was. But this
signature a lot less than the other Blackfriars one.
--Bob G.
jo...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
persuaded me. Well done. Cunning of you to spot that I posted in entire
ignorance of the thread and lack your sure-footed ability to comprehend
things. You sure are an asset (is that the right word?) to your cause.
Best wishes
John Andrews
kenkap
issue at hand which imo is one specific exploration into an area that
has been not dealt with well by previous scholars. If I were to be
cautious, at the moment I personally am not leaping to the absolute
conclusion that Shaksper was illiterate but feel compelled to examine
the evidence as it exists and proceed from there. I believe this work
really pushes forward investigation into the signatures clouded by
words such as "superstition" and "will ful perversity" used by
mainstream scholars to explain a phenomena that doesn't add up.
>From my perspective, a man does not abbreviate his name separately and
give an entirely different signature sinultaneously on two immediate
occasions, especially where such "signature" had no authenticating
legal power.
Ken
jo...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
threads (which, believe me, tedious though they are, I have read in
their entirety) that irrefutably provides evidence that Shakespeare was
illiterate. I doubt very much that the evidence of six or seven
signatures and the differences between them would persuade anyone not
already wanting to find evidence for an alternative "candidate". Any
anomalies your or Mr Detobel think they find are explicable in a number
of sensible and plausible ways (as they already have been - Reedy, Ross
et.al.) which are easily more likely than the crackpot idea that
Shakespeare was illiterate, part of a conspiracy, front man for a noble
dilletante etc.etc. I'm not convinced by these feeble and boring
amateur sleuthings in the absence of any respectable and unambiguous
evidence - hence my sarcasm.
And, by the way, Jonson was on my original list of writers for whom
there is almost no evidence of handwriting for a very good reason. Do
your research before you boorishly shout "stupid" else you may be the
one looking exactly that.
kenkap
Price-page 115: Jonson's handwritten presentation copy of The Masque of
Queens
page 116 Jonson's handwritten inscription on a copy of Volpone to his
"worthy friend, Mr. John Florio"
I'm just looking at an interesting piece of evidence John. And I don't
find anything sensible in the replies of Ross or Reedy.
Ken
jo...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
kenkap wrote:
> Huh?
> Price-page 115: Jonson's handwritten presentation copy of The Masque of
> Queens
> page 116 Jonson's handwritten inscription on a copy of Volpone to his
> "worthy friend, Mr. John Florio"
Well, yes, thanks. That's all we've got? Two examples from a man who
wrote as much as Shakespeare? You rather make my point. And if they
were Shakespeare's would you accept them as genuine...? or shall we not
go there?
>
> I'm just looking at an interesting piece of evidence John. And I don't
> find anything sensible in the replies of Ross or Reedy.
Surprise me. They're Strats and can't have anything sensible to say.
Best wishes
John Andrews