Question: Whole Nine Yards

mlenoch · **Posted:** Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:58 pm

With reference to the above caption, is the real source of this comment known? In other words, was it the standard ammo belt length? Or was it a length specific to a particular aircraft: P-51, P-47, B-17, etc? (look this up in wikipedia. Their explanation is just plain goofy).
Thx in advance,
VL

"undt Herman, die Mustangs ver indeed periwinkle......!"

P51Mstg · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am **Posts:** 1202

Vlado.... If you keep looking up the term, you will find that has been explained in many different ways.... A quick look is here..... I'm sure there are others...

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the- ... yards.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... nine-yards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_whole_nine_yards

Mark H

Taigh Ramey · **Posted:** Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:20 pm

I have wondered about this too. Does the reported 500 rounds of 50 cal really work out to 9 yards? I have been meaning to pull out a belt and figure it out myself...in all the spare time I have...

Then I suppose we would then need to make a data base of the various aircraft (fighters, flexible guns and turrets) ammo capacities to see which ones fit the phrase.

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:54 pm

vlado wrote:

With reference to the above caption, is the real source of this comment known?

The one things that IS known is that the origin is not proven, nor do any of the suggestions have reliable contemporary evidence.

Quote:

In other words, was it the standard ammo belt length?

No. I'd be mildly interested in Taigh measuring a belt (and I know he'll find nothing is nine yards except by 'adjusting' the facts.) but the critical fact is there has never been a single contemporary W.W.II reference to the phrase found to date.

It is inconceivable unlikely that a standard military measure would not have left evidence to us today.

As usual, it's a classic case of something where (currently) the origin of the phrase is lost, and there's numerous back-formed explanations offered, with varying degrees of vehemence. Tellingly, none of them actually feature any measure (or even near!) a real nine yards without 'adjustment' when checked out.

What do we know?

- First documented references in the 1950s - but NOT connected to an original meaning.

- Therefore probably a 1950s, late 1940s formation.

- Probably American, all early refs (1950s) are US (Spitfire belts etc are double rubbish then). No reference in Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, which is British, Commonwealth and US English slang, but weaker on US than elsewhere. Pretty solid on W.W.II Commonwealth air force slang (Partridge was a Kiwi working in the UK). Negative evidence of this kind is important.

- Most offered explanations actually don't fit when checked.

I'd suggest that ammunition explanations should be treated with extreme caution, as they rely on non-military views of ammunition. One offers the full length of ammunition taken for a difficult raid - well AFAIK, rarely were full ammunition loads reduced from normal, let alone increased! As to using the 'whole nine yards' implies firing all the ammunition at one target, in some explanations in one burst. If you think about it (rather than going 'ah, right') a single burst is never advised, and rarely was it possible for an attack to take all the ammunition given the nature of air combat in W.W.II. Possible, but not likely. And no one's shown a nine yard ammo belt to date - suspicious in itself.

Finally It is perfectly possible it has no original meaning, any more than it makes sense now. It works as an unqualified superlative now, it is possible (we would never be able to prove it) that's what it was in the first place.

Without a) evidence and b) a proper fit (the latter I'd still be wary of) all explanations are comforting bull.

Regards,

JDK the wordwatcher...[EDIT - incorrect dates corrected, per jmkendall's post]

Dan Jones · **Posted:** Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:07 pm

I always thought it was in reference to the length of the belt of ammunition for the old WW1, .303 Vickers machine gun.

Dan

Dave Hadfield · **Joined:** Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:31 pm **Posts:** 1672

What makes sense to me is the ship explanation.

There were many kinds of sailing ships: barques, brigs, schooners, barkentine, brigantine etc. An actual SHIP was something that was ship-rigged, and that means 3 masts, and each mast in 3 parts -- mast, topmast and topgallantmast, all mounting square sails. Each mast thus had 3 yards, or yardarms. (In use they are rarely called yardarms.)

So "the whole 9 yards" means the full deal, the real thing, a completness -- a rig that's not bastardized or cut up in any way.

Later of course the sails proliferated -- topsails were divided, so were topgallants, and royals and other sails mounted above, but you get the idea.

Dave

P51Mstg · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am **Posts:** 1202

I can say this.... 100 Rds of 50 BMG is a bit less than 8' long. Seems like some guns had 320rds (inner guns in P-51) and 270 in the outer guns...... So even 320 rounds falls short of 9 yards.....

If I recall correctly a belt and a can weighs about 35 pounds..... Say 30 pounds for the belt and ammo alone.

Mark H

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:43 pm

Thanks Mark.

I'd ask anyone advancing "I heard it is..." to please read the first two links that P51Mstg posted first. Most of the explanations offered have been discounted there, and those websites are hot on these kinds of myths.

The same problem, Dave & Dan, remains. There's no reference ever found in the Machine Gun Corps for the phase relating to the Vickers gun - or anywhere else.

Likewise, through the whole history of tall ships, not one recorded reference, until the [EDIT correction] 1950s! Note also the ship reference is additionally highly dubious because it also doesn't fit how you ships and rigs are talked or written about. See the links mentioned that kill the ship, tailor, ammunition, cement truck and veil theories dead, IMHO.

I'd be delighted to see evidence of an origin - I'm not holding my breath, and offering more of the loads of 'plausible' explanations just extends the conversation Cliff & Norm style, without the decent script.

Humans love to fit explanations to mysteries - even when the explanations won't stand up.

Regards,

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:52 pm

By the way, we've been here before, as you may suspect. Took some finding though! http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... p?p=220282

Regards,

N3Njeff · **Posted:** Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:59 am

JDK wrote:

By the way, we've been here before, as you may suspect. Took some finding though! http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... p?p=220282

Regards,

You must have went the full 9 yards to dig that one out.

JDK · **Posted:** Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:29 am

N3Njeff wrote:

You must have went the full 9 yards to dig that one out.

jmkendall · **Posted:** Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:30 am

What an interesting topic.

Reading the stated references we see that the first noted use, as a colloquialism, was in July 1956 issue of Kentucky Happy Hunting Ground, in an article by Ron Rhody. The author was still alive as of this last October, and is on record as saying it was a common saying in Kentucky; at the time he wrote the article.

If we take into account the rural nature of Kentucky and the lack of mass communications ( i.e. the internet, television-invented but not in common usage, ect) then we can reasonably assume that the origins predate the 1956 article by at least 5 and probably 10 years. It could very well have been spread by Radio broadcast. One suspects that it would have had to have been used a number of times by a great number of people to have been adopted as a slang term by the general public.

In any event the cited usage shows that it was not a late 1950's or 1960's invention. At the earliest it is a mid 1950's invention. And that only if we accept that the phrase sprang into being, and was spontaneously adopted within a year or two of the Authors usage. The Author obviously assumed his readers were familiar with the meaning of the term.

I would note that Kentucky is Coal country; for what it's worth. It could even have been a term of long usage in Appalachia. Many phrases common to that area, and that are centuries old, are not in usage anywhere else.

As a side note; I am in my 50's and people of my generation still use colloquialisms that have to be explained to the younger generation. I honestly can't remember which colloquialism I used at a briefing two weeks ago to my Soldiers. I do remember the blank looks on the faces of the younger (Teens/early Twenties) Soldiers. The soldiers in their mid 30s understood the reference, but only vaguely.

As a note of no weight in this discussion; I well remember my Uncle telling me stories of combat in the Korean War. He was a Machine Gunner. His weapon was "Ma deuce"; the M2HB .50 cal machine Gun. One he told many times was about a time his unit was about to to be over run by a Chicom Human Wave attack. His LT said "Give em the whole nine yards and darn the barrel".

Admittedly hearsay and my Uncle is no longer with us; but I note the incident he related occurred within 3 years of the mentioned article. I don't, by the way, think he had "9 yards of ammunition" but the intent was clear.

"Chicom", by the way, is a colloquialism for "Chinese Communist". A term prevalent from the 1950s till the end of the Vietnam War; and still somewhat in use by my enlistment in 1980.

John Dupre · **Posted:** Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:21 pm

The post mentioning Kentucky coal country makes me wonder if the phrase might have its origins in cubic yards rather than linear. Aren't some dump truck beds measured in cubic yards? Maybe shovels or front end loaders are or were as well?

P51Mstg · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am **Posts:** 1202

I live in WV.... YES... Coal trucks and endloaders have buckets and beds measured in yards.... A CAT 988 has about a 10 yard bucket, of course it didn't come on line until the early 1960s.... It would pick up a 2 car garage in about 2 buckets, its seriously big.....

However, before I'd go to coal for an explanation, I'd go to yards of concrete, since they think of coal in terms of "tons"....

Mark H

JDK · **Posted:** Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:19 pm

Interesting post and points by jmkendall, thanks! I note I misremembered the refs in the quoted links, and pushed the dates to the 1960s, my error, now corrected.

A couple of follow on thoughts to that post - if a phrase disseminated by radio, that increases the chance of a written record surviving of the term, or a recording. We must remember that we are talking a 20C phrase, with the highest literary rates in history. I'm not saying that it couldn't have got under the literary radar, but that etymologists can do better for evidence back in the mediaeval and (say) 18C period for accurate sources of terms, so why hasn't one been found in the easier hunting grounds of the 20C?

The memory of a recent account by a veteran using the term relating to a Korean era situation is an excellent illustration of why we must be very careful of such accounts, though jmkendall isn't suggesting such, these anachronistic 'firsthand' versions are a real trap for the unwary. Note there's a modern book on W.W.II called 'The Whole Nine Yards' - but that doesn't place the phrase in W.W.II use.

Couple of interesting hypothesis there by John Dupre and Mark H. Problem remain that we can theorise all day and find something that fits the criteria (note how, again, 'adjusting to fit' is being carried out?) but on both the linguistic / historical or scientific methods, unless there evidence or you can test the hypothesis, it's just an idea.

On that tack, here's my hypothesis, more explicitly. I'll suggest there is no original meaning, it's just an invented superlative that people can relate to without a meaning 'anchor', and that's what it was originally. Clearly people are happy using (and understanding) it today without the faintest idea what it means. So why not at the beginning? (And that's just another - unprovable hypothesis...)

Regards,

Warbird Information Exchange

Question: Whole Nine Yards

Who is online