I just wanted to say that as part of my summer reading, I’ve been rereading Wodehouse and in The Inimitable Jeeves, there is a reference to “the deaf and dumb language.” This book was originally published in 1923, and is chock full of contemporary slang (old egg, posish, chappie, what the deuce and dash it all etc), so I am assuming that the d and d language was on par with either common slang or at least common usage back then. It’s the first time I’d ever come across it in print.
Just thought I’d share this because many posters in that thread were saying that they had never seen that particular phrase in print.
There is no Pitting here, no position, just sharing info.
Huh? Ok, so there is another source (I wasn’t aware of it. Was it mentioned in the other thread? My bad if it was). I don’t understand your second comment, though. 1923 isn’t well known for its progressive thought etc, so I don’t agree that it’s difficult to excuse; it just exists. It’s not our problem, certainly, but who is claiming that it is?
I was just reading along when the phrase popped out at me (thanks to that thread) and I thought that others would be interested in knowing of a time it was in common enough use to be included in popular literature. I won’t mention it again.
(but still, the rest of the thread does include comments re never having heard of it before).
Perhaps I need to make it clear that I am not defending the phrase, merely citing when and where it occurred.
Sure it is. Look at what happened to women’s fashion around then.
No bras, and if dresses had gone just a bit higher, there would have been a lot more hair to bob.
Not to mention the whole getting to vote thing, but that was back in 1919, right?
OK.
This isn’t playing out the way I imagined it would. I thought others would come in here and say, “oh, that’s (mildly) interesting” and leave it at that. I didn’t google the phrase (why would I?). I just came across it. I’ve asked that the thread be closed because it’s served its purpose, as minute as that was.
I probably overestimated the degree of interest in the topic. Sorry.
<imagines people walking on a thread>
I asked for this to be closed several days ago, but my face must still be in that jar by the door because I don’t even rate a glance from the Mods. What’s a girl got to do around here to get a thread closed?
FWIW, I heartily support your decision to take up Wodehouse in the first place, and why, I might do the same. I have Mulliner Nights within a yardstick’s reach.
Ok, so there is another source (I wasn’t aware of it. Was it mentioned in the other thread? My bad if it was). I don’t understand your second comment, though. 1923 isn’t well known for its progressive thought etc, so I don’t agree that it’s difficult to excuse; it just exists. It’s not our problem, certainly, but who is claiming that it is? 
