Talk:The whole nine yards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A citation for the source of the phrase (or, rather, lack thereof) is the excellent Word Myths (ISBN 0195172841, 2004), which devotes four and a half pages to it, if anyone is curious about following it up. Shimgray 11:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Origin of the phrase 2 etymology 3 Brits 4 Language log

[edit] Origin of the phrase

We have some comments about "the whole 9 yards." I was born in 1958 and as early as I can remember this term was used by both my mother and father, and my grandparents. Throughout the 1940's and 50's slang street terms were never to be found in books or the newspaper, so I am not surprised that it was not recorded. In fact the interest in non main stream talk is a new phenomena as of the sixties. This would make us think that the term could be old and never recorded. Perhaps it was an old slang sailing term that was adopted by the Airforce. Or perhaps it started in World War II. Whatever the origin, this is how oral history is supposed to go; the meaning is with the generation that uses it, and yes, we borrow from the past but we modify it for our own purposes. I rarely use the term today because the meaning I grew up with is not used by the current generation. My family used "the whole nine yards" to mean "a lot of," but the reference was not to cement trucks but to dump trucks, because a nine yard load was a maximum load for a dump truck in the 50's. (comment placed in article by 69.229.235.113, 13:55, 29 March 2006)

Um, why are these things not 2 separte articles?? 209.124.247.63 02:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Although as a matter of note, however accurate the above may be, it wouldn't be allowed on an article for the quote as it's unverifiable (in media). - Hayter 09:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Shimgray. I'm not sure why you changed my edit. BTW, you even changed the version that existed before my edit. You say that that a 1967 cite was previously mentioned. Can you tell me where? I'm not sure why the second earliest cite, prior to Shepard's book wouldn't be of interest, helping to nail down the time frame of the phrase--Viet Nam as opposed to WWII or concrete trucks in the 1950's. Samclem 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)samclem

Oops, forgot I never remembered to add the source for 1966... cited from memory (I don't have the book to hand, but I know I rewrote this article from it) and the other-stories bit tidied (it tends to grow additions of people's favourite theories over time and require pruning). (1966 vs 1967 - it's odd, Doom Pussy is cited with both dates. Not sure why)

As for removing the post-66 quotes... it seemed excessive to me. The phrase got into wide circulation by 1970 at the latest; were the late-sixties quotes themselves fairly unusual (ie, we only have x many pre-1970 cites and this is most of them) or were they just random examples? It didn't give any details, and so I couldn't see any particular reason to leave them in... if they're significant, sure, but please explain that they are :-)

Stratton, mmmh. It's an interesting link - I wonder when that group of stories was first recorded - but it does seem to be just anecdotal... not sure what to do with this bit. Shimgray | talk | 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you spent 30 emails/day and part of your life at the American Dialect Society as Barry Popik and I and a few others do(I know, we're obsessed!), you'd understand what we're trying to contribute. The Shepard book, released in Feb. 1967 is the earliest cite. Period. The Stratton info was found last year I think. Again, on the American Dialect Society Mailing List. It's important. But, IMHO, so is my late 1967 cite that I tried to enter today. We're trying to show that it doesn't go back to WWII or any such thing, by providing cites in print. Samclem 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologise if I was unclear...

The 1967 cite is the earliest, I agree, and it's important to use it to pre-emptively debunk the "my uncle heard it in the Pacific in '44!" stuff. (Incidentally, do you know why it's sometimes listed as '66? Is there a manuscript floating around, an early extract, or just sloppy recordkeeping?) I'm just not sure that in a general encyclopedic overview, we need to go into the level of detail that using subsequent cites involve - "first recorded X, crops up thereafter" is all the detail a general reader needs, to my eyes. Feel free to add the material back in if you feel otherwise, though. Shimgray | talk | 21:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I've hacked this around a bit, and I think you're right - the list of multiple cites seems to work, though it helps when they're put together for context. The first Popik page has a passing mention of "there's a 1968 cite in one of the _Current Slang_ volumes, from the U.S. Air Force Academy" - do you have any details of that one to hand? It'd fill a nice gap in the sequence, but it'd look a bit odd just to say "and one in 1968 somewhere" Shimgray | talk | 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't happen to have the AF Academy cite handy, but will find it. The 1966 date for Shepard is given in a usually reliable source, Jon Lighter/Historical Dictionary of American Slang. But no one on the list today can find a hard cite for the 1966 date. I'll probably not have something on that until tomorrow night. You seem to be doing a pretty good job on your editing. I realized that you were right, the level of detail that is important to me is probably not useful in this kind of context(general encyclopedia). ````samclem sorry, still getting the hang of this format As you can see.Samclem 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The publication date of "Doom Pussy" was 1967. Period. No possible error. As to the rest, I'll get back to you. 65.185.95.214 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That was me. As if you didn't know. Samclem 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Doom Pussy was published in Feb. 1967. The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang uses a 1966 date, consistent with its editorial policies, on the theory that the book must have been written in 1966 to be published so early in 1967. John M Baker 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia and not a specialized work, why not totally leave out the HDAS/1966 language and just go with the 1967 publishing date? 65.185.95.214 01:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)samclem

Sam, that's entirely appropriate for the article, but since there is confusion on the dating, it's helpful to clarify that on this discussion page. John M Baker 17:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004623.html 199.203.89.98 12:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (yuval pi)

[edit] etymology

Logically, just because a phrase is used in a certain context it doesn't follow that it originates there. Even if it's the oldest known example. The association with firing all rounds of an aircraft's magazine (which is not measured in yards) is no nearer an etymology than emptying a dump truck (the contents of which are not measure in yards). I'm thinking first recorded use is not necessarily etymology. It's a kind of logical fallacy. Hakluyt bean 04:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brits

Notwithstanding my above post... I should point out that Brits (& poss Canadians) generally assume the phrase originates with WWI. It crops up in casual reference all over the place. Here's a random example: One of our greatest metaphors for putting forth the maximum effort to achieve a goal comes from the slaughter of the Somme and Flanders Field — “going the whole nine yards” meant unloading in one glorious spasm the entire belt of machine gun bullets upon one's enemy, the standard issue belt that was nine yards long. (oops, actually that looks like a N. American site but the point stands - catholic education Hakluyt bean 04:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My father explained to me in the fifties that the expression goes back to the tea clippers, which had three masts, each with three yards. "Going the whole nine yards" meant cramming on all sail and to hell with the weather. Makes more sense to me.

[edit] Language log

They've turned up an earlier reference -- see http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005107.html AnonMoos (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)