the 1966 "nine yards" audience listed (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Stephen Goranson]

Thanks, Bill. I do not assert that the 1942 quote is the *whole* story. I
mentioned 1964, 1966 (twice), 1967, and 1969 parts of the story, and the
proposed defense contractor tradents, in my latest message.
I do say it's a quite important part of the story. The options are not limited
to those you (and some number of others) currently allow. The quote need not
have followed such limits or specifications. The 1942 quote is not like any
earlier quote, that I've seen so far. Linear measure ones are different. I
invite others who have not spoken on line or off to give their views. I'm more
interested in history than in appeals to authority. No one owns the quote. By
the way, I do not put much store in views along the lines that, were this the
case "we would know about it" already.  In that vein, I don't think SNAFU is a
good example WWII parallel equivalent. A somewhat better one, still I suppose
not thoroughly explained, might be gizmo/gismo. It so far appears to be of
military origin, from about the same WWII time period, 1940-1941 or so, compared
to 1942. And the current twenty-two year gap is not unknown in other cases.

Stephen Goranson
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson


Quoting "Mullins, Bill AMRDEC" <Bill.Mullins at US.ARMY.MIL>:

> 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
>

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