I cannot verify this, but a veteran I trust informed me that “the whole nine yards” refers to 27 foot cartridge belts used in WWII aircraft. Any truth?
This is one of those few questions that I believe Cecil had to go back and amend his answer to. I don’t know what the resolution was. I don’t have the patience to search the archives, so I’ll just tell you what I think the origen of the expession is:
The “whole nine yards” refers to a three masted ship under full sail;
- The foresail yard
- The fore topsail yard
- The fore topgallant yard
- The mainsail yard
- The main topsail yard
- The main topgallant yard
- The mizzensail yard
- The mizzen topsail yard
- The mizzen topgallant yard
Yards were the spars that held the sails to the masts, and would usually be taken down if not in use (at least the topmost yards). A ship carrying nine yards was one that was giving it all she had, literally throwing caution to the wind. Too much sail could damage a mast, so the “full nine yards” means giving it all you’ve got regardless of the consequences.
Aon Dia.
Aon Tir.
Aon Ite.
have read these, but no one suggested my submission. so, I offer this as another possibility. It should be easy enough to check out. Any vets out there?
No. The term precedes WWII. Having read several hundred books on the subject of the airwar during WWII, I have never seen the phrase used in any recollection by any pilot. The oldest reference that I have seen linking “nine yards” and U.S. aircraft is only about three years old–far younger than the cement mixer truck, coal truck, or material in a bride’s dress theories that have circulated for at least twenty years. U.S. planes carried a a wide variety of armaments, often carrying more ammo for the “inside” guns (used for sighting) than for the “outside” guns. There is simply not enough evidence for this speculation to give it any credence.
Tom~
Papabear? I think you’re missing a few yards, here. Where are your royals? In addition, by the time of the clippers, the tops’l, t’gallant, and royals had all been divided in two on many ships with upper and lower tops’l, upper and lower t’gallant, and upper and lower royals. And while the “nine yards” precedes WWII, I can’t remember a citation from backin the nineteenth century when all those yards were hanging off masts.
Good try, but I believe that the answer has still eluded us.
Tom~
I thought it was originally the whole nine CARDS, from the little-known poker variant of nine-card draw. If you got a really dreadful hand, you could replace the entire nine cards in your hand, hence… But over time, the expression was misheard.
Warning: Satire may, from time to time, seep into my comments. I am not responsible for these environmental leaks.
Tom - I’m not above above ignoring royals, toproyals, and skysails (not to mention spritsails, staysails and jibs) to tell a good story.
I still like your arctic generator cables story best.
I stand corrected. thank you tomndebb, et al, for your input. I humbly withdraw my suggestion.
I have the phrase in a book of celtic fairy tales originally published in 1892. The phrase is used in a different context than we use it. I’ll read the book again and post it here.
Mastery is not perfection but a journey, and the true master must be willing to try and fail and try again
I remember hearing that in the old (?) days, it took approximately 9 yards of fabric to make a really top-notch dress. So if you could, you went “the whole nine yards”.
Grrrrr, popo. Read Cecil’s column in the archives before you post crap, eh? The nine yards to make a dress/suit/wedding train is discredited, as are most explanations that have been floating around.
As far as I know, the earliest citations of “the whole nine yards” known to lexicographers date from the late 60s to early 70s.
So if anyone has an earlier citation, certain people would like to know about it. Even if it means something a bit different than its current meaning.
BTW, I can’t seem to find the Cecil column on this topic in the archives.
In defense of “Popokis5”, I have reviewed Cecil’s remarks, and Cecil reaches no conclusion NOR does Cecil address the clothes-making issue. All I do see are WAGs by Cecil’s fans. If Cecil DID refute this as “Dtilque” suggests, it has eluded me as well.
The well-accepted origin refers back to the tailor. Whether it’s a suit or dress per se is pushing it. Ultimately, the expression has been adapted to many situations. Like many of these cliches, the original phrasing is lost. For example “the proof is in the pudding” is NOT the correct expression.
The suggestion from “Dtilque” that the cliche only dates back to the '60s or ‘70s is crazy. I don’t have it written in stone by a lexicographer, but people certainly used this expression…as reflected in remarks from other members’ postings as shown above.
Some things are just passed down by word of mouth. I mean, who was to first to say “it’s like reinventing the wheel?”
Wait a minute, PapaBear are you saying you were kidding? You had me totally convinced! Mainly because nautical terms seem to be the source of so many obscure expressions that I guess I would believe anything.
“Gullible” is actually derived from a nautical term describing a very maneuverable ship.
Seriously though, I had figured that only nine yards were needed for a vessel to be fully-rigged, and that the royals and skysails were sort of “optional accessories”. At least, that’s what it looks like from certain simple drawing of each type of vessel … ships have nine square sails, brigs have six; barques have six plus some fore-and-aft stuff on the mizzen…
So please tell me you weren’t kidding.
jti: thanks for the pointers to Cecil’s column and the other discussion. Some of those posts were hilarious.
jynx: I think you attributed to me two things which I didn’t say. I couldn’t find Cecil’s column on-line, so I didn’t say he disproves anything. I will say that having numerous stories all allegedly explaining the same phrase is redolent of folk etymology.
Secondly, while lexicographers haven’t been able to find any cites earlier than the late 60s, this doesn’t mean that that’s when the phrase originated, although it does suggest that it originated not too long before that.
Dtilque, my apologies for the confusion on my part. I stand corrected. Strike that from the record!
Rephrasing: In defense of “Popokis5”, I re-direct my statement to “CKDextHavn” who claims the dress/suit/wedding train angle is discredited. Cecil’s reply did not touch on this, and the many WAGs diverge from any hard conclusions and/or discrediting this theory.
My grandfather told me “the whole nine yards” referred to the amount of ammunition for a machine gun on the ground in WWII. One of those strips of ammunition was nine yards of bullets… soldiers were instructed to fire a few rounds or “give 'em the whole nine yards.”
One site I found that backs this up is at http://www.psd.k12.co.us/archive/libnet/2648.html
Zyada wrote: “I have the phrase in a book of celtic fairy tales originally published in 1892. The phrase is used in a different context than we use it. I’ll read the book again and post it here.”
If that’s true, Zyada, then you have the earliest reference to this phrase. The problem in this case would probably be trying to figure out why it appeared in print in the 19th century, then dropped out of sight for 60 to 70 years, then suddenly showed up again.
After reading the other postulations here, I can see why Cecil gets so frustrated with the teeming millions. Didn’t anyone bother to read the original post before offering the same old suggestions? (Sorry, forget it, rhetorical question)
– Mike –
The problem with Zyada’s reference is that, when it was republished the editor may have edited and/or changed phrasings to suit the times. Now, if the book says that there were no changes in the original text, we may be on the right path. 