Not Chopped Liver (1947); Texas Toast (1960); Ants on a Log (1983)

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>>My default hypothesis would be that "ball of wax" in this sense originated
>>as an 'intentional malapropism' for "bailiwick".
>>
>>This would be analogous to (and conceivably the model for?) "[mind your
>>own] beeswax" for "business".
>>
>>It would seem that "ball o' wax" was available early enough to be picked up
>>for the malapropism (with the meaning "shoemaker" ... although the meaning
>>-- as with "beeswax" -- is presumably of no significance). No etymological
>>legend about balls of wax is required IMHO.
>>
>>-- Doug Wilson
>
>Aren't the meanings too different here?  Unlike the case of
>"beeswax", which in the expression "Mind your own ____" really just
>means 'business', a "bailiwick" is a domain or (in the AHD's term) 'a
>person's specific area of interest', which isn't at all the same as
>the whole ball o' wax (the universe, the whole thing, whatever.  ('an
>unspecified set of circumstances'--AHD4)  "Bailiwick" is standardly
>used with the possessive, the person defining the relevant domain,
>"ball o' wax" isn't.  I don't see this as fertile ground for
>reanalysis. -- Larry

The word "beeswax" was first used in place of "business" at some point, for
unknown reasons but presumably as an 'intentional malapropism'. The meaning
of the word "beeswax" (i.e., wax from a bee) was essentially irrelevant.
[Similarly, one might say "horse pistol" for "hospital" (this one I used to
hear in my youth, and it appears a few times on the Web).]

"Beeswax" did not replace "business" in all environments; I don't think one
will hear "he's in the grocery beeswax" etc.: it's only in "mind your own
..." and "none of your ..." (and maybe a few other expressions?). [And why
"beeswax"? Why not, say, "bee's knees"? I don't know.]

Similarly "ball o' wax" (taken ONLY for its phonetics without any real
reference to a ball or to wax) may have replaced "bailiwick" in the single
expression "the whole bailiwick" and not in other environments such as "the
Judge's bailiwick" etc. I do assume the pre-existence of the expression
"the whole bailiwick" = "the whole territory", and the hypothesis would
certainly be stronger if this was a common turn of phrase back in 1850 or
whenever "whole ball of wax" appeared. "The whole bailiwick" need not have
encompassed the entire semantic territory of the modern "whole ball of wax"
however; after the replaced word was forgotten one would tend to use the
expression as if it referred to something like a ball.

"Bailiwick" and even "whole bailiwick" do appear occasionally meaning
"[whole] territory", with no possessive, even now. For example search at
Amazon.com turns up in a recent Piers Anthony novel ("Split Infinity",
1987, p. 270) the sentence "Better to avoid that whole bailiwick." [and I
don't see a 'possessor']. Or: Robert Grossbach (2001), "A Shortage of
Engineers" (p. 200): "those are whole other bailiwicks."

Look at Popik's 1892 example: "the whole ball of wax" MIGHT refer to "all
the girls" (but that's not an application which would be likely today IMHO)
but it might also be construed as "the whole country". The 1882 instance
which I posted recently has "the whole ball of wax" = "the whole country"
as I read it. If we had more early citations it might (or might not, of
course) be evident that the early sense of "whole ball of wax" was "whole
territory/country" ... much more like "bailiwick".

But I don't want to give the impression that I am fervently attached to
this hypothesis: it's just the best one I see right now, my "default guess"
until something better appears!

-- Doug Wilson