OnlineBookClub.org

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?

I loved this book a lot. Its vivid portrayal of economic injustice and human resilience makes it a timeless and poignant social critique.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.