"Close, but no cigar."

[Jonathan Lighter]

But no cigar is not always "no cigar."

Victor's ex. sees to imply that when a man takes another man's arm
(they used to do this in the nineteenth century out of simple friendliness),
he is likely also to offer him a cigar.

I see no implication here of a near miss, still less of the words "close,
but...."  The notion seems not to apply. 1930 is the date to beat.

JL

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, victor steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       victor steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "Close, but no cigar."
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, but no cigar is always no cigar.
>
> VS-)
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> > Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
> >
> > LH
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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