Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Double cross Login/Join
 
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted
I read an article today where someone double crossed another person. We all know what that means, but then I wondered how it turned into double cross. Wouldn't it just be to cross someone? Etymology.com wasn't helpful, as they gave this for double cross: "1834, from double + cross in the sense of 'pre-arranged swindle or fix.' Originally to win a race after promising to lose it." Isn't to "cross someone up" the same meaning? How is "double cross" different?
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Could the 'double' be from the situation or the fact that you've crossed two people, at least in the original meaning? (cf. double agent) In the example quoted, if you've promised to lose a race, that's crossing/cheating one set of people; if you then win it, you've crossed the person you promised to cheat for. The fact that the original victims don't notice anything is perhaps irrelevant.

I don't know - I'm just typing as I think, lol (never a good idea).
 
Posts: 669 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
An interesting article.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
That was interesting, Zmj.

To me, by saying "double cross" you are almost changing its meaning from cheating someone ("crossing" him) to making it right or not cheating him (you crossed it once and now you are crossing it back).

Or is that just my literal thinking again? Roll Eyes
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The word double could either be used as in "double agent", or "doubly cross", that is crossing twice, or crossing twice as much. Obviously, the latter meanings seem to make more sense, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

I would say "Don't cross me", but refer to someone who crossed me as a "double crosser", since being a "crosser", doesn't sound right, and sounds a little bit much like what Jesus was.
 
Posts: 886 | Location: IllinoisReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Double cross (or double-cross) was originally a term used in sporting or gaming events. A cross (OED Online,1802) was “a contest or match lost by collusory arrangement between the principals; a swindle" (1892), and a doublecross” occurred when the arranged “loser” decided to win.

Online Etymology Dictionary traces it to 1834: “from double + cross in the sense of 'pre-arranged swindle or fix.' Originally to win a race after promising to lose it.” John C. Hotten’s 1874 A dictionary of modern slang, cant, and vulgar words gives this definition: “Double cross, a cross in which a man who has engaged to lose breaks his engagement, and ‘goes straight’ at the last moment” (found in the OED Online). The OED Online cites double cross (double-cross) from 1834 as a noun (in the poem, The Double Cross) and 1903 as a verb.

There are several discussions about the origin of the term on the Internet. Someone on the Wordwizard forum claims that double cross came from an earlier expression, “to put on the double double,” and the term's first recorded use was in 1826 in reference to a boxing match. The sources given are Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms, Heavens to Betsy by Funk, and Oxford English Dictionary.

ESC on the Phrase Finder forum says it was originally an English racing term and cites Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997).

Linda Montgomery Investigations traces the origin to the Thief-Taker General, Jonathan Wild, in 1682 England. Gerald Howson wrote two books about Jonathon Wild, Thief-Taker General The Rise and Fall of Jonathan Wild, 1970, 338 pages, and 1987, 340 pages It Takes a Thief: The Life and Times of Jonathan Wild.

The Double Cross (1834) by W. Harrison Ainsworth (1805-1882)
quote:

I

Though all of us have heard of crost fights,
And certain gains, by certain lost fights;
I rather fancies that its news,
How in a mill, both men should lose; [1]
For vere the odds are thus made even,
It plays the dickens with the steven: [2]
Besides, against all rule they're sinning,
Vere neither has no chance of vinning.
Ri, tol, lol, etc.

II

Two milling coves, each vide awake,
Vere backed to fight for heavy stake;
But in the mean time, so it vos,
Both kids agreed to play a cross;
Bold came each buffer to the scratch, [3]
To make it look a tightish match;
They peeled in style, and bets were making, [4]
'Tvos six to four, but few were taking.
Ri, tol, lol, etc.

III

Quite cautiously the mill began,
For neither knew the other's plan:
Each cull completely in the dark, [5]
Of vot might be his neighbour's mark;
Resolved his fibbing not to mind, [6]
Nor yet to pay him back in kind;
So on each other kept they tout,
And sparred a bit, and dodged about.
Ri, tol, lol, etc.

IV

Vith mawleys raised, Tom bent his back, [7]
As if to place a heavy thwack;
Vile Jem, with neat left handed stopper,
Straight threatened Tommy with a topper;
'Tis all my eye! no claret flows, [8]
No facers sound--no smashing blows,
Five minutes pass, yet not a hit,
How can it end, pals ?--vait a bit.
Ri, tol, lol, etc.

V.

Each cove vos teared with double duty,
To please his backers, yet play booty, [9]
Ven, luckily for Jem, a teller
Vos planted right upon his smeller [10]
Down dropped he, stunned; ven time was called
Seconds in vain the seconds bawled;
The mill is o'er, the crosser crost,
The losers von, the vinners lost.

[1: fight]
[2: money]
[3: man]
[4: stripped]
[5: fellow]
[6: Notes]
[7: hands]
[8: blood]
[9: deceive them]
[10: nose]

I think the poem was also a song.

During my search I ran across a website about the history of the Old Bailey Courthouse. I thought some of you might be interested.

Tinman

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,
 
Posts: 2879 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of aput
posted Hide Post
This is a perfect opportunity to mention a word famously used in only one context. Churchill switched from the Conservatives to the Liberals in 1904, and back to the Conservatives in 1924, in both cases of course with great success.

"Anyone can rat," he said, "but it takes a certain (amount of) ingenuity to re-rat."
 
Posts: 502 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright © 2002-12