What is the etymology of "duck" meaning a score of nought in Cricket?

Question

Duck is defined as:

a batsman's score of nought.

How did "Duck", mysteriously, come to mean a score of nought?

Here is the earliest reference in OED from 1868:

1868 St. Paul's Mag. in Daily News 24 Aug. You see..that his fear of a ‘duck’—as by a pardonable contraction from duck-egg a nought is called in cricket-play—outweighs all other earthly considerations.

OED has a separate entry for "duck's egg" with a reference to 1863

1863 C. Reade Very Hard Cash vii, Now you and I, at Lord's the other day..achieved..the British duck's-egg.

A NYT reference from 1859 antedates references in OED to "duck-egg" as well.

He is the secretary of the Montreal Club, and was the means of getting the Eleven out, so of course he could not be sent home with a duck's egg."

The New York Times 28 Sep 1859, Wed (paywall)

Did you try looking this up in a dictionary? What was inadequate to you about the information given there? Your definition appears to come from a dictionary lookup (at least it is identical to the ODO definition), so I’m guessing you did. But that has the etymology right underneath it, giving you your answer… — Janus Bahs Jacquet, Jun 11 '17 at 15:32
Is there some reason you don't believe these entries on Quora? Why duck is used, if a batsman scores zero? What is the significance of using duck for scoring zero? Is there any history behind it or something else is associated with it?? Or How did the 'duck' become the symbol for a zero score? — Arm the good guys in America, Jun 11 '17 at 15:37
I'm more familiar in the US with gooseegg than duck egg as a reference to zero. Which may be why duck is a cricket term, but not current in US English. — John Lawler, Jun 11 '17 at 18:21
@Race What is the point of the edit? Duck egg clearly precedes duck in usage. — Arm the good guys in America, Jun 12 '17 at 11:30
@Clare the question was going to be closed for lack of research. I thought it had potential so I added some research — RaceYouAnytime, Jun 12 '17 at 11:31
@Clare I don't understand, are you saying adding the research was pointless? I came to this question on the review queue, I could have voted to close, along with others suggesting "look it up in a dictionary," but instead I posted some cursory research because I found the question intriguing. — RaceYouAnytime, Jun 12 '17 at 11:46
@RaceYouAnytime - the question is interesting, and you did the right thing in adding the required preliminary research a new used may have difficulty in finding. Unluckily there are users who are prejudiced against etymological questions, and are unable to appreciate any effort in that respect. https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7853/what-about-an-etymological-section-on-elu — , Jun 12 '17 at 11:57
I liked the edit, and upvoted it. The question should be left open, so visitors can read interpretations, answers, discoveries. Not everyone finds etymological questions a waste of time. @Clare isn't it better that this site provides an answer rather than redirecting users to different sites? I did not know about goose eggs or duck eggs referring to scores, but once it's pointed out it seems pretty straightforward. A brief history is all that was needed, maybe in a wiki-community post. I'd be happy to contribute, I stopped caring about rep. Anonymous DVs is a different issue. — Mari-Lou A, Jun 12 '17 at 12:23
@JanusBahsJacquet - the one line etymological explanation provided by the ODO is really "poor" and too "essential" for whoever cares about asking the origin of the expression. — , Jun 12 '17 at 12:37
@Josh I don’t disagree—that’s why I suggested editing what it was about it that the asker considered inadequate. In the original version, it was not included or acknowledged at all. — Janus Bahs Jacquet, Jun 12 '17 at 12:55
Seemingly related but the question refers to the actual bird: Etymology of “duck” — Mari-Lou A, Jun 12 '17 at 17:32
@RaceYouAnytime The main issue with your edit is that it's basically the answer to the question. In its current form, I can't see that there is any question being asked. — 1006a, Jun 12 '17 at 19:13
Also related: Why do they say “love fifteen,” in tennis? — Mari-Lou A, Jun 19 '17 at 11:26

score 5 · Accepted Answer · answered Jun 12 '17 at 23:59

5

The earliest match for duck's egg in the sense of a mark of zero that I've been able to find is from a letter to the editor of the [London] Morning Advertiser (August 28, 1848) [combined snippets, paywall blocked]:

...to be the Miss Lydia filly by Don John, who was backed for a fortune to win the Oaks, and again by a few, rather heavily, for the Goodwood Cup, but here she was absolutely friendless. Mr. YVrather [?], her proprietor, was fined for the nondeclaration of colour, which, however, was no apology for the omission of the name on the card, as there had been no declaration of forfeit, and I must again anathematize the return lists, which get worse and worse each day, winding up with a start of twenty for the race, in lieu of ten, and put a duck's egg, alias 0, to Canezou amongst others, who were quietly reposing in their stables. Such awful blundering is mischievous, disgraceful, and perfectly unpardonable; and if they cannot find a printer in the North who knows his business, let them send to the South, they do for their judge and starter.

This instance, besides being eleven years earlier than the one cited by the OP from the New York Times on September 28, 1859, is also of interest because it involves horse racing rather than cricket. This suggests either that the letter writer was applying an expression from cricket to the track or that the usage originated outside cricket and migrated there subsequently.

The Wikipedia entry for cricket indicates that it dates to the sixteenth century, meaning that the sport emerged in England hundreds of years before the earliest instance (so far) of the slang term "duck's egg" appeared.

answered Jun 12 '17 at 23:59

Sven Yargs

163,267

3

But why a "duck egg" and not a chicken's which is far more common? Is it due to size, colour, elitism? Did "duck" have a derogatory meaning in the 16th century? And why was it more often than not a goose's in the US? So much more could be said... or maybe not. – Mari-Lou A Jun 13 '17 at 06:32
1

@Mari-Lou: I've always assumed it's because duck eggs and goose eggs are larger than chicken eggs, so calling something a "duck egg" gives the impression of a more significant "0". Maybe a really disastrous loss should be called an "ostrich egg". – Peter Shor Jun 13 '17 at 12:03
1

I'm unimpressed by the scholarship here re duck vs goose. Our modern proclivities are just not the same as those of the 18th century. It's pretty obvious from archeological dental records that chickens were not as common in either the colonies or the homeland but geese and duck were, respectively. Also note the corroborating evidence that goose and duck eggs are not as oblate as the chicken egg (18th c fonts show a zero as much more circular than today's). – Mitch Jun 13 '17 at 13:15
Not as central but relevant by analogy is that 'safar', the Arabic source for 'zero' is cognate with 'tayr bida' or bird egg. – Mitch Jun 13 '17 at 13:16
@Mitch - interesting, that's probably what inspired students in the Victorian era to refer to an egg as a symbol for zero. – Jun 13 '17 at 13:32
@Mitch: Goose eggs and duck eggs aren't as oblate as chicken eggs? Do you have any evidence for this statement? Looking at images, they all look around the same oblateness to me. – Peter Shor Jun 14 '17 at 18:13
3

@PeterShor: So you're saying that Mitch erred in basing his criticism on the oblative case? – Sven Yargs Jun 14 '17 at 18:43
@PeterShor For this very reason (circumference to length ratio), chicken eggs are considered pareve but goose not (both still kosher of course). – Mitch Jun 14 '17 at 18:58
1

@Mitch from a reference cited by Josh, but which he appeared to ignore or failed to catch: Pearsall (1998: 1094-5), s.v. love 3, is particularly good in her entry in showing that a folk etymology, widely current, is based on nothing other than a vague similarity to French l'oeuf badly pronounced by English speakers, whom the word may remind of a duck egg: – Mari-Lou A Jun 19 '17 at 11:18
@Mari-LouA Aha, now I know why the Continental breakfast is so small! : One egg is un oeuf. – MetaEd Jun 21 '17 at 21:12

score 0 · Answer 2 · 2017-06-13T10:58:55.777

work still in progress...

Apparently an English schoolboy slang term, a duck's egg was probably used to refer to a score of nought because it was bigger than that of a hen. Its usage became common from the mid 1850's and was originally used only in cricket:

These days the expression can be used in almost any game that involves a score of some sort but originally — back in Victorian times — it related solely to cricket. It seems to have been English public-school slang of the 1850s to call a score of nought against a player’s name a duck’s egg — presumably a duck rather than a chicken because a duck’s egg is bigger and more prominent.

The expression was fairly soon shortened to "duck":

It began to appear in print in the early 1860s and soon people shortened it just to duck. The first known example of that form appeared in the Daily News in August 1868: “You see ... that his fear of a ‘duck’ — as by a pardonable contraction from duck-egg a nought is called in cricket-play — outweighs all other earthly considerations.” A batsman who was dismissed without scoring was said to be out for a duck.

As noted, the AmE equivalent is goose egg:

Americans briefly knew of duck’s eggs in the 1860s, but prefer now to speak of goose eggs in much the same sense, a slang term that is almost exactly contemporary with the cricket one.

(World Wide Words)

The same assumption is supported also by the following source:

“Duck” as slang for scoring no hits (or meaning a player who scores no hits) originated in cricket in the mid-19th century, but is now used in other sports as well. “Duck” in this sense is short for “duck’s egg,” meaning the zero placed beside the player’s name in scoring sheets.

It first appeared in schoolboy slang in Britain, where it is also used to mean “nothing” in a general sense. To finally score after a time at “duck” in cricket is to “break one’s duck,” but if that doesn’t happen and the game concludes with a player not having scored even once, that hapless soul is said to be “out for a duck.”

(Word Detective)

As explained in the Historical Dictionaries and Historical Dictionary Research: duck meaning zero is one of a set on "esteemed synonyms" like nought, cipher, null and love.

In Present English, duck is a cricketing term in general use, not just by schoolboys.

What is the etymology of "duck" meaning a score of nought in Cricket?

2 Answers2