Mind your language
The Guardian's Mind your language blog tackles the biggest question of the age with its latest entry:
Something lacking in the trouser department?
Big debate that has divided the experts: 'all mouth and trousers' v 'all mouth and no trousers'
Production editor David Marsh reports:
A reader has taken the Guardian style guide to task over our preference for the phrase "all mouth and trousers" to "all mouth and no trousers".
He says: "I was just ranting about this in a comment on David Mitchell's latest soap box post, and it occurred to me that I had never written to the style guide itself on the subject of what I consider the erroneous advice regarding 'all mouth and no trousers'. I'm afraid that I rather feel that it is 'all mouth and no trousers' because the idiom refers to someone boastful who cannot back up their boasts with actions in the, er, trouser department.
"By missing out the word 'no' the meaning is lost, as is the earthiness of the metaphor. With the recommended formulation at best you can say that the individual concerned is both boastful and wears flashy trousers, but flashy trousers are hardly a well-rooted idiom.
"Frankly, I had never come across the phrase without the 'no' in it until I encountered in the style guide, and it saddened me mightily."
Foolish, ignorant reader. Marsh considers the usual sources, and comes to the correct if rather wishy-washy conclusion:
"All mouth and trousers" probably came first, and in the interests of consistency, we shall keep it in the style guide. But let's not get too prescriptive about it: both phrases will have their adherents, and you should use whichever pleases you more.
As previously noted, the people who prefer the bastardised 'no' version often typify the original phrase.
(And thanks to the Guardian's own Nick Das for mentioning this humble blog in the comments to the above.)
The Economist's entertaining Johnson blog has also picked up on the debate. The writer there sadly seems to assume the bastardised version is the original. Of course, that organ has a shameful record on this issue.
Something lacking in the trouser department?
Big debate that has divided the experts: 'all mouth and trousers' v 'all mouth and no trousers'
Production editor David Marsh reports:
A reader has taken the Guardian style guide to task over our preference for the phrase "all mouth and trousers" to "all mouth and no trousers".
He says: "I was just ranting about this in a comment on David Mitchell's latest soap box post, and it occurred to me that I had never written to the style guide itself on the subject of what I consider the erroneous advice regarding 'all mouth and no trousers'. I'm afraid that I rather feel that it is 'all mouth and no trousers' because the idiom refers to someone boastful who cannot back up their boasts with actions in the, er, trouser department.
"By missing out the word 'no' the meaning is lost, as is the earthiness of the metaphor. With the recommended formulation at best you can say that the individual concerned is both boastful and wears flashy trousers, but flashy trousers are hardly a well-rooted idiom.
"Frankly, I had never come across the phrase without the 'no' in it until I encountered in the style guide, and it saddened me mightily."
Foolish, ignorant reader. Marsh considers the usual sources, and comes to the correct if rather wishy-washy conclusion:
"All mouth and trousers" probably came first, and in the interests of consistency, we shall keep it in the style guide. But let's not get too prescriptive about it: both phrases will have their adherents, and you should use whichever pleases you more.
As previously noted, the people who prefer the bastardised 'no' version often typify the original phrase.
(And thanks to the Guardian's own Nick Das for mentioning this humble blog in the comments to the above.)
The Economist's entertaining Johnson blog has also picked up on the debate. The writer there sadly seems to assume the bastardised version is the original. Of course, that organ has a shameful record on this issue.
posted by Tim Chapman at 9:09 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home