Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 1 Oct 2007 08:49:48 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
X-cc: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
<002101c80409$5d831e70$0201a8c0@geoff> |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
An interesting (and rather windy) appraisal of the derivation, which denies
the physical probabilty of the cannonball triangle explanation, is on a UK
website:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/cold%20enough%20to%20freeze%20the%20balls%20off%20a%20brass%20monkey.html
geoff carver
<gjcarver@T-ONLIN To: [log in to unmask]
E.DE> cc: (bcc: Vergil Noble/MWAC/NPS)
Sent by: Subject: Re: first/third brass
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
10/01/2007 10:59
AM ZE2
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
one story said the monkey was a sort of frame you put the cannon balls
into,
something to hold them in place while you stacked them, pyramid-style (kind
of like the thing you put your snooker/pool/billiard balls into, to set
them
up [rack?]), and that if it was really cold, the brass would contract
enough
to send the cannon balls (which would not contract quite so quickly)
flying...
whether that's true or not, i don't know, but i'm sure bob will find a
better version on google somewhere
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron May" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: first/third brass
> Ok, I have a question that begins with the nautical phrase "its cold
> enough
> to freeze the balls off a brass monkey" (calm down everyone, we are
> talking
> cannon balls). Were cannon balls really brass or were they bronze...and
> what
> the heck was the monkey made of?
|
|
|