On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:59:10 +0000, Adam Funk <
a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
>On 2012-02-11, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>> On Feb 11, 9:51 pm, "John Varela" <
newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:15:59 UTC, GG <
nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> > "come/get down to the short hairs"
>>> >
http://tinyurl.com/78mtjmh
>>>
>>> > seems to have both the
>>> > "come/get to the last resources available"
>>> > and the
>>> > "come/get to the smallest details"
>>> > meanings, right?
>>>
>>> I don't think I've ever heard that expression. What I've heard is
>>> "come/get down to the short strokes", which means reach a climax or
>>> at least a conclusion, and that I've always interpreted as obscene.
>>>
>> It looks like a conflation of that with 'get somebody by the short and
>> curlies'.
>
>Or "X has got Y by the short hairs" (a variation that I've also heard).
I think the uncurled version is the original: certainly it could be
used in print in the late 19C - Stalky translates it into Latin. I've
always assumed it must mean "by the hairs on the back of his head",
making it impossible for the victim to move at all; but it's a
difficult image. More difficult, though, is the "curlies" one, as
taking a firm hold on somebody by the pubic hairs seems most unlikely
- I don't suppose its users worked too hard at making literal sense of
the expression.
--
Mike.