the 1966 "nine yards" audience listed (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Mullins, Bill AMRDEC]

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


> Thanks Bill for your comments and citations. I reckon our
> main agreement is that more, especially early, cites may well
> shed more light. My method shares that with yours. If I read
> your posts correctly, you have variously declared the 1942
> cite either totally irrelevant or of minor, footnote-level
> significance.  I'm a bit baffled how, if you do not yet claim
> to know the origin, you claim such certainty that the 1942
> cite plays little or no role.

I DO NOT claim certainty -- and in fact, in my post of yesterday, I
mentioned two ways in which new discoveries could show that your 1942
cite is of greater importance than I (and, I believe, many of the other
interested parties on this list) currently weight it.

My point is this, and I doubt I'll take trouble to make it again.  The
rationale you have given to support the contention that the 1942 cite is
of importance in the origins of the figurative phrase "whole/full nine
yards" is not persuasive to me, because (primarily) of the long temporal
gap between your 1942 cite, and the 1960's first usages of the
figurative phrase.  Others have said in this list (and offline) that it
is not persuasive to them, either -- I won't speak to their reasons for
believing so.

Now, it is likely that the figurative usage came from some literal
usage.  That being said, a survey of literal usages prior to 1960 is a
part of the story.  Your cite is part of the story.  I can come up with
a half dozen other cites that are also part of the story.   I just don't
agree with your assertions (??) that the 1942 cite IS the story.
Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org