Grapes of Wrath
Forum rules
Authors and publishers are not able to post replies in the review topics.
Authors and publishers are not able to post replies in the review topics.
-
mwtzzz
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 19 Nov 2019, 20:57
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Grapes of Wrath
I just started reading the Grapes of Wrath and I've come across a couple old-time expressions that I had never heard. I was wondering if someone was familiar with these and could explain what they mean and something about their origin:
"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?
"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?
-
Onwuesi Promise
- Book of the Month Participant
- Posts: 186
- Joined: 29 Aug 2023, 20:53
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 15
I loved this book a lot. Its vivid portrayal of economic injustice and human resilience makes it a timeless and poignant social critique.
-
Charmaine Mahlangu
- Posts: 269
- Joined: 04 Dec 2021, 23:09
- Favorite Book: Defining a free man from a black stream
- Currently Reading: The hyena stare
- Bookshelf Size: 80
- 2024 Reading Goal: 500
- 2024 Goal Completion: 14%
He wasnt putting on no dog means (He was not acting self - important Or was a little too care free)
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
while reading that book. Good luck
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
while reading that book. Good luck-
mwtzzz
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 19 Nov 2019, 20:57
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I had started the book, but only read the first few pages before getting sidetracked. I plan to return to it at some point.
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.
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.
