"Whole nine yards" : some negative evidence [addendum]

[Stephen Goranson]

Too ingenious? Must speakers have conceived them (tribes with members)
as "items," then use "all"? (Did they know and follow your rules?) I already
provided a parallel phrase from a translation of Machiavelli, The Art of
War, "the whole ten Companies"? Is that, too, too ingenious, for you, to
exist? Coincidence is a possibility to consider. Coincidence, in the sense of
meaningful relation in time and space and cause, may also be worth
considering. This explanation would help explain how the origin, coining,
became obscure, I suggest, when used in contexts removed from that coinciding.

Stephen Goranson

Quoting Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM>:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "Whole nine yards" : some negative evidence [addendum]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> We've been focusing on WWII because the recent "MG belt" theory has become so
> popular and just interesting enough to warrant exploration.
>
> "The whole nine Montagnards"?  Surely this is too ingenious.  "All nine"
> would be the natural way to refer to a collection of separate items.  "The
> whole nine" suggests a solid mass of something. (This is another strike
> against the "MG belt" theory, BTW.)  And wouldn't "all nine tribes" be even
> more idiomatic than "all nine Yards"?
>
> I think Yards/yards is a coincidence.
>
> JL