Lizzie Borden Society Forum

CAVEAT: I MAKE A FEW MISTAKES ALONG THE WAY IN THIS THREAD, WHICH I AFTERWARDS CORRECT. (I'M REASONABLY SURE I'VE GOT THEM ALL (SO FAR).) ANYHOW, READ IT THROUGH BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSIONS.

I've finally gotten around to reading the primary sources (as opposed to sampling them). When things get tedious, as they often do (the matter of the bloodstains is covered in sufficient detail, to put it mildly), I pay attention to the language of the period, which is quite interesting:

I notice that nobody uses any contractions. I wonder if it was considered bad form in court or whether the transcriber was just opening them out. (They certainly existed at the time.)

"You was" rather than "you were" (for singular only) seems to be usual. (This goes back to the time when "you" started displacing "thee" and "thou" and was not regarded as incorrect until comparatively recently. You'll find it n Fielding, for example.)

"else" was frequently appended to the preceding word, as in "anybodyelse."

"Shall" was used much more frequently than is typical of modern American English.

(to be continued, by me and anyoneelse who's interested)

I think what it was was that back then proper people used proper english. or maybe contractions weren't invented then? Just a thought.

They were indeed invented. Looking things over again, I find they are used, but much more sparingly. (Bridget uses them, for example.) They seem to be pretty much limited to the present tense. "Don't" for "doesn't" seems to be common, even in the speech of the educated.

The use of language, and how it changes is very interesting. I did read your postings but didn't reply because I am learning from you and have nought to say.

I have heard that "ain't" is a natural contraction and should be acceptable.

There's a member here who Blogs and has a bit to say there on language:
"Unnatural Writing Quirks."

In historical reenacting, which I do, we've learned that one of the quick ways to "sound period" is to swap singular and plural agreements, saying things like "I were out in the field," and "We was attacked by the enemy." The usage rules were still evolving.

For me this was reinforced when I started reading the Lizzie trial transcripts.

On the question of "ain't," I understand that it originally was used only for "am not." (Notice the comparative rarity of "amn't," which leaves a gap in the language. "Aren't I" is apparently a corruption of "a'nt I," misunderstood by people speaking dialects of English in which "r" is pronounced before consonants and finally (so-called "rhotic" accents, like "General American," Canadian, Irish and Scots English). "Ain't" apparently came to be disapproved of when "misused" for other persons and eventually even when "properly" used.

Constantine, good posts! It's an interesting subject.

Thanks, Harry.

I wonder whether present-day Fall River speech (and that of neighboring areas) retains any of these features (and others) , especially among older people.

"You was" is, of course, not dead yet. Neither is "he don't," etc.

We of course tend to regard our own dialects as typical unless we get feedback from others. I remarked in another group I belong to that we don't use "shan't" in the States and was promptly contradicted by people who knew people who did (though most of these were old-timers). I also said that, in most parts of the States, lip service was given to the idea that a full "long u" was correct in words like "suit" and "stupid," but it would be regarded it as a bit pedantic actually to use it. I was told to speak for myself.

Living within 15 miles of Fall River for my whole life, I would say the trial transcripts have a very old-fashioned and formal sound to them.

Today, you won't hear many people around hear asking "Was you. . .?" And we use contractions as much as anybody else (two words.)

Some people make the plural of "you" into something that sounds like "yuze," as in "Did yuze guys go to the mall?" This is rather more common than one might wish. I have no idea how common this might be outside of our area.

Much of this region is blue collar and much of the area is made up of first, second or third generation immigrants, primarily from non-English speaking countries--Portugal, Brazil, Cape Verde, Azores. This has changed our language somewhat since 1892, when the local immigrant population was very heavily English and Irish.

"Youse" is also to be heard in New York City and elsewhere. In New York, at least, it is often regarded as rather a "tough guy's" usage. I was surprised to find that it is also used in Ireland (where it does not seem to have this connotation). This and the southern "you all" (properly only plural) show that we feel the need for different forms for singular and plural in the second person (as does "you was" vs. "you were").

I was born and raised in NY (just north of NYC) and "youse guys" was very common. My work transferred me to Mississippi and I was constantly kidded about that expression.

I think the regional dialects are nice to hear and its a shame they are dying out.

I can tell you this that it was hard typing those transcripts when I ran into sentences that used expressions or spellings that were not common to me. The spell checker and grammar checker in MS-Word lit up like a Christmas tree at times. Definitely could not use auto-correct.

My area seems to have some slang words in its dialect that I have only heard here. Such as the word "YUNZ" being used in place of "you guys". This is the only area I hear that. Are there any words that seem to only be used in Fall River?

I've been doing some searches, the results of which qualify some of the things I've said above:

Though "you was" and "was you" are used, so are "you were" and "were you," which, indeed, are far more common. The same person may use both.

I seem to be mistaken about "don't" for "doesn't" (though the latter seems never to be used). I think I was thinking of "done" for "did," which does occur a few times.

More searches.

I was right about "don't" after all. It sometimes doesn't have the apostrophe. "Doesn't" doesn't appear in the preliminary hearing, but does in the trial (which has a lot more contractions).

I notice that "remember to" is often used (when dealing with the past, not as in "remember to turn up the heat).

Upstairs and downstairs usually appear as two words.

In all cases, it seems, where there is a difference from today's typical usage (or what I imagine to be such), today's usage also appears and is often more common.

Take all this with a grain of salt while I continue examining these documents (and by all means do so yourself).

It sounds like the language is in transition, from what you've described.

Since Harry typed the trial, he's seen it all before. It was hard! I'm surprised he even posted to this topic.

Kat @ Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:27 pm wrote:It sounds like the language is in transition, from what you've described..

It always is.

Kat @ Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:27 pm wrote:Since Harry typed the trial, he's seen it all before. It was hard! I'm surprised he even posted to this topic.

All the more reason for him to post, it seems to me.

I was as much taken with the spelling as the grammar.

Travelled, labelled, bevelled all have an extra L.
Defence instead of defense.
Meagre, centre instead of meager and center.
Moulding instead of molding.

I believe all the above may be the English spelling. Whether this was peculiar to the stenographer seems doubtful but possible.

As has been commented on already they break up a great many words:

Court room, up stairs, down stairs, and used hyphens sitting-room, dining-room.

They rarely capitalized the word "street", as an example "Second street".

In the grammar area they loved the word "which" whereas today we use "that" in most cases.

Harry @ Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:09 pm wrote:I was as much taken with the spelling as the grammar.

Travelled, labelled, bevelled all have an extra L.
Defence instead of defense.
Meagre, centre instead of meager and center.
Moulding instead of molding.

I believe all the above may be the English spelling. Whether this was peculiar to the stenographer seems doubtful but possible.

These are indeed regarded as English spellings, at least today, though I don't believe they have ever been regarded as incorrect here. It's my impression that British spellings are tolerated here more than American spellings are in England.

I know that some American spellings were invented and/or promoted by Noah Webster (-or rather than -our, for example). Some of these even rubbed off on the English (e.g., final ic for ick in words like "traffic"). I don't know when the American spellings of the above words came in (or which is older, assuming it was not a matter of different selections of already-existing variants).

More searches.

As regards American vs. British spelling, I notice that "-or" is used, not
"-our." I guess that change must have been one of the older ones.

When I started this thread, I was (and still am) reading the preliminary hearing, which I made the mistake of regarding as typical. There are differences among the sources, obviously reflecting the peculiarities of the transcribers rather than the speakers.

The attached "else," for example, is limited to Volume II of the inquest (i.e., Lizzie's testimony) and the preliminary hearing.

Contractions are much more common in the trial than in the preliminary hearing. This strengthens my suspicion that the transcriber opened most of them out.

Curiously, apostrophes are always omitted in contractions in Volume I of the inquest. They are used only in possessives and "o'clock."

I believe only one stenographer, Annie White, was used at the Inquest and Preliminary hearing. Those were both held in Fall River.

However, at the trial it was different. David Kent's book "Forty Whacks", page 152+ has an interesting few lines on the method used to transcribe the testimony:

"The stenographers scurried downstairs to their cramped quarters to type the official transcript.
Henry Ford may have taken his cue from the assembly line of stenographers and typists who set down the record of the Borden trial. The on-duty stenographer, one of a troop of like men, sat at a desk in front of the witnesses, working a five-minute shift. As soon as he approached his limit of time, another man moved in beside him, nudged, and took over like the hand-off runner in an Olympic relay race. At that, the on-duty stenographer sped from the room, raced down the stairs, and delivered his steno pad to one of a battery of young lady typists. In the meantime, a third stenographer was making his way up the stairs. The system was so efficient that one hour after a witness had testified, both counsels and the judges had before them a typed transcript neatly bound and stitched."

This would explain some of the differences within the Trial transcript iteself.

Constantine @ Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:25 pm wrote:
The attached "else," for example, is limited to Volume II of the inquest (i.e., Lizzie's testimony) and the preliminary hearing.

Lizzie's inquest testimony has been reproduced from a transcript published in the New Bedford Standard and probably reflects the newspaper's own style.

Would information and knowledge or experience of the shorthand court stenographers used at the time help in determining if the shorthand itself had flaws when it came to the read-back as to whether, say, a contraction was used?

(I don't have any onfo to provide on this.)

First of all, let me correct an error: I mixed up volume I and II of the inquest. (Volume I is the reproduction of Lizzie's testimony and Volume II is the rest). If Annie White was the stenographer for both the inquest and the preliminary hearing (and I am not trying to express any doubt about that), it is strange that the attached "else" is used in Lizzie's testimony (from the New Bedford Standard) but not in the rest of the inquest (or did my memory play a trick on me again? I'll find out.)

Minor point: The name of one of the officers occurs as "Gillen," "Gillan," "Gillian" and "Gillam"? Anyone know which is right? ("Gilliam," perhaps?)

Yesterday In Old Fall River, Dr. Hoffman, Carolina Acedemic Press, 2000.

"Gillon, Patrick
Gillon was a policeman in Fall River. At the preliminary hearing City Marshal Rufus B. Hilliard, on the stand as a witness, testified that Gillon was with officers Patrick Doherty, Michael Mullaly, William Medley, Charles H. Wilson and others he did not remember at the Borden house on the day of the murder. Since no other mention has ever been made of Officer Gillon in connection with the Borden murder case, Hilliard could have been in error when giving his testimony on August 31, 1892."

---------

I don't know why the Professor says this, as John Donnelly mentions
*Gillian* as ordering him out to the street from the yard, in the prelim., pg.s 440-441.

Please, somebody, correct me if I’m wrong.

The “official” transcript of Lizzie’s Inquest testimony does not exist. What remains is a “verbatim transcript” recorded by a newspaper reporter from the New Bedford Standard, which the paper published in June 1893 during the trial. It would therefore reflect the newspaper’s own style, not the style of the court stenographer.

If it was, in fact, actually from the court stenographer, the typesetter of the Standard may still have changed things like the “else” suffix to reflect the newspaper’s own style.

Newspaper styles vary.

In the 1980s I worked for a publisher of three weekly newspapers. Although the ownership of the three papers was the same, each had its own editor. While I was there, Reva Roy of The Middleboro Gazette would lowercase the word street as in “Main street,” while the Dartmouth Chronicle and the Somerset Spectator (the parent newspaper of the group) used uppercase “Main Street.”

My wife, who edited the Fairhaven Advocate until our daughter was born and we started our own magazine, used lowercase “streets” when listing more than one together, as in “the intersection of South and Fort streets.” I follow her style, which is probably correct, although left to my own devices I’d make the plural streets uppercase, too.

FairhavenGuy @ Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:17 am wrote:Please, somebody, correct me if I’m wrong.

The “official” transcript of Lizzie’s Inquest testimony does not exist. What remains is a “verbatim transcript” recorded by a newspaper reporter from the New Bedford Standard, which the paper published in June 1893 during the trial. It would therefore reflect the newspaper’s own style, not the style of the court stenographer.

If it was, in fact, actually from the court stenographer, the typesetter of the Standard may still have changed things like the “else” suffix to reflect the newspaper’s own style.

Newspaper styles vary.

You are correct Chris, the official transcript of Lizzie's inquest testimony is not available. The transcript we use is indeed from the Standard. Stefani and the late Terrance Duniho did yeoman work in proofing it for the copy that appears in the LB Virtual Library.

I believe the "else" suffix only appears in the Preliminary but it's been a while since I perused those documents.

We can be pretty sure that Annie White was the only stenographer at the inquest due to its secret nature. There is also testimony which states who was there and no other person other than the talented Ms. White is mentioned.

As for the Preliminary, hers is the name credited on all of the cover pages of the five individual volumes. Whether in fact she was the only stenographer is open to speculation. However, I personally have never seen any other name mentioned.

As it happens, my memory was indeed playing a trick on me. It is the transcript of part II of the inquest (official or not) and that of the preliminary hearing (ditto) and they alone among the primary sources that contain the joined "else." Sorry.

To clarify:

According to the introductory material for the Preliminary Hearing, Annie White herself made two known copies of the hearing for Hosea Knowlton and Andrew Jennings, of which only the second incomplete copy is known to survive. This is missing the testimony of Thomas Kieran, a synopsis of which is supplied from the New Bedford Evening Standard issues of August 25 and 27 (where his name is given incorrectly as Robert C. Kieran), that of Annie White, a synopsis of which is supplied from the August 31st issue, and the closing statements, supplied from Edwin Porter's Fall River Tragedy.

Annie White was also the stenographer for the the Inquest, of which Volume I, containing Bridget's and Lizzie's testimony, is missing.

Lizzie's inquest testimony, reprinted in the Evening Standard of June 12, 1893, forms the surviving portion of Volume I .

The "else" suffix occurs only in the Preliminary Hearing and part II of the Inquest. Looks like we can lay this one to Annie.