[Ads-l] DUDDERS and Run Goods

[Robin Hamilton]

QUOTE:
_____

I was reflecting a couple of years ago after seeing an entry for it in a
17th century slang dictionary that "dud(s)" is a word with the rare
property of having been around for several centuries as a slang item
without either making it into unmarked use or disappearing.  (Actually
singular "dud" (or "dudde") did go extinct, as the OED notes, but in the
plural it seems likely to last forever.)

LH
_____

Given the 120+ year gap (1440-1567) between the second of the two OED cites,
and its appearance as a cant term in Harman's _Caveat_, I suspect that
"duds"may be a re-invention, independently entering the cant lexis in the
early sixteenth century.  Add to this, the first two OED cites are both in
the singular, and the cant use is *always* (as far as I know) in the plural,
I think there's a good case for saying that DUD (pre-1440) and DUDS (post
1567) are distinct terms.  GDoS gives a slightly earlier 1542 cite for
"duds", via Farmer, from "The Jolly Beggar", also in the plural.

My sense would be that it shifts cant => slang => colloquial/informal, but
never quite makes it into Standard Written English.

Robin

As a PS ...

The OED has, under DUD, n:   1 b. slang and dial. Effects in general,
'things'.  1665   R. Head Eng. Rogue I. sig. C6v,   All your duds are binged
awast ...

This is from the first stanza of a poem by Thomas Dekker, first published in
the 1612 edition of _Lanthorne and Candlelight_:

        Bing out bien Morts, and toure, and toure,
            bing out bien Morts and toure:
       For all your Duds are bingd awaste,
            the bien Coue hath the loure.

Richard Head raided a post-1620 edition of L&C (probably the 1648 edition)
for this poem to include in _The English Rogue_ in 1665, then in 1672, in
_The Canting Academy_, published the bulk of the remainder of Dekker's poems
in cant.  Unfortunately, he omitted Dekker's name from the texts.  When
J.S.Farmer published _Musa Pedestris_ in 1899, he printed "Bing out bien
Morts" with Dekker's name, but because he was using the 1612 edition of L&C
rather than the 1620 edition, missed most of Dekker's other poems in cant,
which he managed (with one notable exception) to include from a variety of
later sources, and labelled as "Anonymous Jacobean Poem(s)".

The end result is a really quite spectacular clusterfuck when it issues in
the discussion and documentation of early cant texts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message----- 
From: Laurence Horn
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:57 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: DUDDERS and Run Goods

---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: DUDDERS and Run Goods
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was reflecting a couple of years ago after seeing an entry for it in a =
17th century slang dictionary that "dud(s)" is a word with the rare =
property of having been around for several centuries as a slang item =
without either making it into unmarked use or disappearing.  (Actually =
singular "dud" (or "dudde") did go extinct, as the OED notes, but in the =
plural it seems likely to last forever.)

LH

> On Feb 4, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Robin Hamilton =
<robin.hamilton3 at virginmedia.com> wrote:
>=20
> In a previous message, I said:
>=20
>    =E2=80=9CDUDDER -- a person who goes into the country and pawns =
(possibly stolen) goods, or clothes, pretending they were made in =
London.=E2=80=9D
>=20
> Actually, I got this backwards.  Poulter has an extended discussion of =
Dudders elsewhere in the _Discoveries_, from which we can deduce that =
such people passed-off London-made handkerchiefs as if they were =
high-quality East India ware. As George correctly noted in his original =
post, =E2=80=9CGoods made in London=E2=80=9D implies inferior material.  =
Rather than being associated with clothes (=E2=80=9CDuds=E2=80=9D) =
generally, they seem to have dealt exclusively with handkerchiefs =E2=80=93=
or so both Moll King in 1747 and John Poulter in 1753 would have us =
understand.
>=20
> The common element to all three figures that Poulter names =E2=80=93 =
Lockers, Dudders, and Fencers =E2=80=93 is that they pass-off as =
smuggled goods, things which were either stolen or inferior.  Tea was =
exceptionally highly taxed, and as a result would probably have been =
stolen in London and sold by the Fencer of Slops in the country.  The =
Dudders=E2=80=99 handkerchiefs were cheap goods passed off as quality =
material.
>=20
> Robin Hamilton
>=20
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - =
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttp-3A__www.americandialect.=
org&d=3DAwIFaQ&c=3D-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=3DwFp3X4Mu39hB2bf13gtz0ZpW1TsS=
xPIWYiZRsMFFaLQ&m=3DFCpHokiy4n7-kvlc2Zg3Gg7alO7gwvQtt-sDcZAO8f8&s=3DnDAKAh=
vErDgNqDSa1-C5VyjlAwHZ_I3vur-wKbt5fLQ&e=3D=20

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

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