"gold dust" -- fig. (not in OED) 1739; concrete 1704

[Victor Steinbok]

Clicked Send too quickly again.

I was going to replace or append this bit from Dampier's actual 1699
publication that refers to a voyage of 1684, so the same caveats apply.

http://books.google.com/books?id=adsNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA153
> These Mountains abound in Gold, which by violent Rains is wash'd with
> the Sand into the adjacent Brooks, where the /Indians/ resort in
> Troops, washing away the Sand and putting up the Gold-dust in their
> Calabathes or Gourd Shells : But for the manner of gathering the Gold
> I refer you to Mr. /Wafer/'s Book : only I shall remark here, that
> /Quito/ is the place in all the Kingdom of /Peru/ that abounds most
> with this rich Metal, as I have been often informed.

Given the ambiguity of dating this piece, it is interesting that the
description matches closely the previously mentioned 1688 translation of
the Royal Commentaries on Peru. It would be useful to track down Wafer's
book, if it still exists.

Also note that the catalog entry (WorldCat, GB and several of the
libraries) for the 1709 volume of the 1699 journey is incorrectly given
the title of this volume--the 1699 /journey/ is to New Guinea, the 1699
book of the 1684 journey is around the world.

Otherwise, the record remains as I presented it in the preceding message.

     VS-)

On 3/27/2010 7:44 AM, Victor Steinbok wrote:
> ...
> Here's a blend of the first two OED citations--an early citation about
> New Guinea.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=oNsNAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA119
> A Continuation of a Voyage to New-Holland, &c. In the Yaer 1699. By
> Captain William Dampier. London, 1709
> Dampier's Voyages. Vol. III. Part II.
> [All pages dated] An. 1699. Chapter 4, The main Land of New Guinea.
> Its Inhabitants. p. 125 [GB says 119]
>> I also shew'd them some Gold-Dust, which they seem'd to know, and
>> called out /Manneel/, /Manneel/, and pointed toward the Land.
>
> The volume says 1709, but the notes are for 1699. To make matters
> worse, Part I of the volume, which is bundled at the front, is from
> 1703--no idea how it's going to be treated, but it's really a moot
> point. The reference points to the fact that the use of "Gold-Dust" as
> a single term was widespread, in at least some circles, prior to 1699.
> So that sets us on a gallop backward.
> ...

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org