Grapes of Wrath
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 19 Nov 2019, 20:57
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Grapes of Wrath
"He just done it for ducks. He wasn't puttin' on no dog." I've no idea what this means.
"My dogs was pooped out." From context, I understand this to mean his feet were tired from walking. It's curious the use of "dogs" in this manner.
Are these real expressions from the first half of the twentieth century, or are they merely something Steinbeck made up?
-
- Book of the Month Participant
- Posts: 267
- Joined: 29 Aug 2023, 20:53
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 26
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-onwuesi-promise.html
- Latest Review: The Legacy of Job's Wife by Cynthia Koelker
- Charmaine Mahlangu
- Posts: 371
- Joined: 04 Dec 2021, 23:09
- Favorite Book: Defining a free man from a black stream
- Currently Reading: The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue
- Bookshelf Size: 102
The duck one I'm also confused. It looks like they are expressions that were used back then because Google can find them . Wow looks like you got yourself tied in a knot there
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 19 Nov 2019, 20:57
- Bookshelf Size: 0
According to the following website https://www.southernliving.com/culture/ ... e-dog-mean, "putting on the dog" is a Southern expression that means "to put on a flashy display". And according to this site https://research.colonialwilliamsburg.o ... he_dog.cfm the phrase probably originated in the 1860s as pertains to wealthy people with lapdogs. This last bit makes a lot of sense.
Regarding "doing it for ducks": the "Dictionary of American Regional English," Volume II, D-H, by Frederic G. Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall (1991, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., and London, England). Page 225, says "ducks" means "something that makes no difference." This makes sense so possibly could explain it.
This page https://forum.wordreference.com/threads ... t-17262949 stipulates that since "ducks" rhymes with "yucks" the expression might be a play on words "doing it for yucks" = "doing it for laughs". At first glance this would appear to make sense, however the Oxford English dictionary says the earliest known use of the work yuck is in the 1960s, so that voids this theory.
-
- Book of the Month Participant
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 22 Dec 2024, 15:23
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 20
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-nati-jiniya.html
- Latest Review: Digging for God by Tom Hillman
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 19 Nov 2019, 20:57
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Yes, it is very interesting. I didn't get any farther in Grapes of Wrath, deciding to devote time to other books instead. I'm currently 30% into Martin Chuzzlewit - an excellent book, if you're interested.Nati Jiniya wrote: ↑13 Jan 2025, 17:41 Such interesting language! I am sad most of it is getting lost, but as they say, language is a living organism and it needs to modify to every period of time.