"Whole Nine Yards" and Occam's Razor, etc.

[Stephen Goranson]

As for the 1855 cite, I agree that it is, exceedingly probably, a coincidental
collocation. The 1855 cite is in a joke, yet many of the early idiomatic uses
of the phrase concern major endeavors, big deals, rather than jokes. The 1855
cite is plainly in linear measure; many of the early idiomatic uses are plainly
not using linear measure. (And the _1955_ Naval Air Station claimed--50 years
later--memory does not correspond with Stratton's 1973 quote, which is in
non-linear measure, item, item, item form.)

The 1942 cite is different: not a joke but a major undertaking; not linear yards
but shipyards. The 1942 cite is specifically about defense contracting and
congressional involvement; many early idiomatic uses are in defense contracting
or in congressional hearings, or both.

As for Occam's razor, two of the present options are that (a) the 1942 Liberty
ship remarkable production at nine new yards, one of the main factors in the
outcome of World War II, plays a role in the origin or (b) some as-yet unknown,
unattested cause in or before 1964.
Which of these two options would Occam have considered to be the case of
unnecessarily multiplying entities?

The person to whom I most recently mentioned Admiral Land's testimony is an
emeritus professor of history, military history, especially World War II
history, including defense contracting. (Years ago he asked reference
librarians about this particular phrase.) His response, inter alia,
"congratulations."

Plausibility could be well and openly assessed without unnecessarily-multiplied
a priori assumptions and too-hasty dismissals.

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

Quoting \"Shapiro, Fred\" <Fred.Shapiro at YALE.EDU>:

> I think Barry\'s take on this issue is praiseworthy, serving as
> demonstration that one can discover a coincidental foreshadowing of a
> term and place it in proper perspective rather than concocting an
> improbable theory of the coincidental foreshadowing exterting a
> causal influence on usage decades later while leaving no trace in the
> intervening time-period in the extensive databases we now have
> available. Because one CAN construct an etymological theory does not
> mean one SHOULD push it way beyond its plausibility. Also, I think
> one needs to have a sense of the rhythms and logic of etymological
> innovation and diffusion and the applicability of Occam\'s razor to
> etymological explanations.
>

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