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.
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]
Last edited by
JDK on Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.