It started as a joke by Newton. When you understand, you can be stood on.
Thanks for a great example!
I didn’t want to make this thread only about “make out”
Basically, I want to understand how this works: You take two words, which may or may not be part of a larger sentence in which the meaning is clear, you strip out everything else, leave the two words (which by themselves convey no clear meaning), and then use them, for the first time on another person (to which you either have to explain the meaning, or hope that he gets it by reference to the full sentence you just stripped).
Who are the sorts of people who do these things? Have any of you guys ever done this?
Is it authors? I hear that Shakespeare coined a few phrases. So, if you have a big audience, you can try coining new phrases and some may catch on.
Is it random people on the street? Do they just think that it sounds cooler to say “The bandit made out with a lot of money” than to say “The bandit made it out of the bank with a lot of money”? I don’t know anyone who is of the type who would say the former sentence (as the first utterer in the world) if he meant the latter.
Like I said, I think it’s groups of youths (or otherwise) who start it among themselves as puns, and then the circle grows through curious outsiders (or it doesn’t – and the circle closes back in on itself). Speakers don’t go around trying to use it with people who wouldn’t know what it means. Misunderstanding may be a barrier, but it may just as well be slang’s virtue, preserving it among its core users while it slowly gains new ones. Though to make it big, the phrase needs utility. For example, “make out” is clearly very useful since its alternative, “french kissing,” is long and lame.
But I think, in your question, you have it all backward. Such phrases seem nonsensical but they actually do carry a tidbit of apparent meaning. Contrast them to the adoption of completely new words. Forget pondering “under stand,” in which “under” probably actually meant “between/inside” and the whole thing implied to “get into” an idea. Take the word “grok.” A brand-new word is typically far more obtuse.
The word “grok” is one whose etymology we know very exactly; Heinlein coined it in the book “Stranger in a Strange Land”.
I’ve heard ‘get cracking’ meaning ‘to study’. Since ‘cracking open a book’ can also mean ‘starting to study’ the cracking is the sound some book make when first open.
So, 'get cracking" is from ‘cracking open a book’.
Since studying is considered working to some people, ‘get cracking’ could also be used for starting to work.
I don’t have anything empirical to add to the discussion, but just some terminological and conceptual points.
First, the technical linguistic term to describe the phenomenon of the meaning of the whole not being recoverable from the meaning of its parts is “non-compositional”.
Second, something to think about: all monomorphemic words (words consisting of just one morpheme, like “man” or “water”) are non-compositional in the sense that the phonemes that make them up give no clue about the meaning. Idioms like “make out” just take this to a higher level: instead of conveying a meaning by stringing together arbitrary phonemes, they do so by stringing together morphemes. Why languages work this way, of course, is a harder question.
Could this also be due somehow to cracking a whip?
I’ve always thought this came about because of stories in books and old movies where employees were whipped to get them to work or work harder…
You also whip farm animals, so cracking might be working the field with your ox.
Wally: “So Eddie, how much did you make out in the candy store?”
Eddie: “I made out with six candy bars and a pack of baseball cards. I never got caught.”
Next day:
Wally: “So Eddie, how did you make out with Sue Ellen last night?”
Eddie: “I got to second base.”
Wally: "Gee, Eddie, what exactly . . . "
Eddie: “Shhhh, here comes the Beaver.”
Second base was always the fuzzy one. Baseball needs more bases…
There’s always “rounding second, headed for third” and “trying for second, but get’s thrown out.”
Well, I think it rarely happens like this. Your description makes it seem as though someone has orchestrated some kind grand plan to bring a new term into the lexicon.
In the case of make out, however, all you have to do is a little research. Opening up the OED is probably your best bet. For one thing, we know that make has long been used in various ways to express that something has successfully been produced or accomplished. It also tells us that make out has long meant “to get along,” “thrive,” “succeed,” etc., for over 200 years.
It also tells us that to make someone, especially when that someone is a woman, has meant, for over 100 years, to succeed in some kind of sexual quest regarding that person, .
It’s not such a big step for people 50 years ago (not just “kids” with some kind of stratagem to “enhance” the language), to start saying make out meaning to succeed with someone in some kind of sexual pursuit.
To think that the phrasal verb simply came out of nowhere as someone’s whim is to ignore the whole history of the base verb make. And most other idiomatic uses of phrasals can be understood in similar ways.
Thank you!! I didn’t mention it, but I KNEW there was another reason to crack a whip! 
Interesting.
Since you seem to know this field well, can you describe some current theories about why or how languages work this way?