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

[Wilson Gray]

On Nov 1, 2004, at 11:44 PM, Douglas G. Wilson wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Douglas G. Wilson" <douglas at NB.NET>
> Subject:      Re: "Whole nine yards" : some negative evidence
> [addendum]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>> "All nine" would be the natural way to refer to a collection of
>> separate
>> items.
>
> That's what I think too, but after a little database browsing I'm a
> little
> less positive. I find "the whole five men" to be unnatural, for
> example,
> but it turns out this type of construction occurs -- although not with
> great frequency -- here and there in the routine newspapers for
> example.
>
>> "The whole nine" suggests a solid mass of something. (This is another
>> strike against the "MG belt" theory, BTW.)
>
> I disagree with the BTW. I think "the whole nine yards of ammo" is more
> natural than "all nine yards of ammo" particularly if the yards can be
> subdivided (which they can). I would prefer "all 400 rounds" rather
> than
> "the whole 400 rounds" however. None of these strikes me as
> grammatically
> impossible.
>
> -- Doug Wilson
>

Has anyone yet shown that ammunition of any given caliber is or was
measured in yards of belting, as opposed to its being measured by the
number of rounds in a container, whether the container holds loose
rounds or belted rounds, regardless of the length of the belt, either
officially or unofficially, in any branch of service whatsoever at any
time whatsoever?

-Wilson Gray