The whole nine yards comes from the American boom years of the 50’s.
The selling of houses became more difficult as the suburbs sprang up. The developers would therefor install many houses with extras such as carpets, and later full fitted kitchens etc.
The amount of carpet needed to cover an average flight of stairs is nine yards. This therefore became a “in industry” expression for the level of furnishing that the developer wished to install in the house.
Workman “What do you want us to do inside boss?” he would say….
Developer “Oh… Give it the hole nine yards.” Meaning fully fitted carpets, later to mean “the works”.
You can just imagine the salesman wearing his plaid suit one arm over your shoulder showing you the new house say. “This baby is full loaded fitted carpet and kitchen, the hole nine yards. I’ll even throw in a new stove and fridge for your little lady.”
This it was always used as an expression there is no way of looking for origination. It’s a term that has always meant what it means…
I’m not buying this one. For one thing, the majority of houses built in the 1950s were single-story units (ranch houses and Levittowners), and the majority of two-story units had eight-foot ceilings. My calculations (based on a modern rise of 7" and run of 9" – actual 1950s stairs were often steeper) indicate that such steps would require a maximum of 20 yards of carpeting. Also, stairs are difficult to cover with a single length of carpet; it’s easier to cut a piece for each step. In this way, in a fully carpeted home, stairs can be covered with remnants.
One more thing; if this was a selling point, wouldn’t everyone who bought a house in the 50’s know what it means?
In case you’re wondering, fadman, where the snarkiness in the above posts comes from, it’s because the production of hypothetical derivations for the phrase seems to be a cottage industry among netizens. It’s a slow month here on the SDMB when at least one person doesn’t come along with yet another explanation, usually without any sort of evidence or citation.
We’ve been over this again and again and again. You may not be aware of it. But that’s why it’s a touchy subject.
If you’ve got some proof – actual and verifiable usage from a period publication – by all means, offer up.
I don’t actually think those posts are TOO snarky, compared to many I’ve seen on here.
It’s a shame that people take that attitude, actually.
It ain’t that pleasant an environment into which to walk. I’ve posted in ONE thread on here before now.
Theoretically, people could have materials relating to real estate sales from that period lying around/relatives who did it etc. Would they have consulted these before? No. Would they now? Yes. If that turned up the correct answer…
I dunno. I’m sure it gets annoying, but I’m also sure the attitude of many on here (again, not singling out the posts above) doesn’t help the Quest.
[catharsis] While I understand your point, and agree that many times new posters are subject to derision and caustic comments, in the above case I think that the fadman posts something as factual that isn’t. Where he/she got it remains to be seen, but it shows that the poster hasn’t bothered to investigate much about the term. We can overlook the spelling of “whole” as “hole” I guess.
While you’re correct that we should probably simply ask for cites, it get rather tiring dealing with teenagers who wander in, discover a discussion that they think they know the answer to, and post. Period. They post what is in their head as if it were fact. Not all of the newbies do this. And the intelligent ones don’t have a problem. They get welcomed. Cherished.
But when a person wanders in, brashly writes a column stating everything they say as fact, and gives no cites, I don’t think that a bit of chiding is out of order. Flaming the person is bad. Flaying their hide is not nice. But letting them know that they stepped into a group of people who won’t take any crap is acceptable, IMHO.
fadman I hope if you return to this thread, unlike many new posters, you will not get discouraged and quit the board.
Most people here are pretty accepting. A few are not. But you have to learn the rules. And the posters here demand more than simply an opinion or something you read somewhere when it comes to ideas.
Wow there were a dozen explanations for the whole nine yards in that column, and of course not the one I heard:
In WWII pilots had 9 yards of ammo. If they unloaded all of it into an enemy fighter they said they gave him “the whole nine yards”. I’m sure this can’t be verified anymore than other theories.