Mind your languageLanguage This article is more than 13 years oldSomething lacking in the trouser department?
This article is more than 13 years oldBig debate that has divided the experts: 'all mouth and trousers' v 'all mouth and no trousers'One of the joys of language is that sometimes it is the little things that trigger the most intense debate. Such as one little word: "no". Or, more accurately, the difference between trousers and no trousers.
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."
Works of reference are pretty much evenly divided on the matter. Usingenglish.com backs up the Guardian's position: "all mouth and trousers: someone who's all mouth and trousers talks or boasts a lot but doesn't deliver. 'All mouth and no trousers' is also used, though this is a corruption of the original."
Tony Thorne's Dictionary of Contemporary Slang (Pantheon, 1990), however, says the corruption was in the other direction – defining "all mouth and trousers" as "adj. British. Blustering and boastful, showing off without the qualities to justify it", it adds: "There is a suggestion that this is a corruption of a more logical, but rarely heard, expression, 'all mouth and no trousers', meaning full of talk but deficient in the sexual area."
The rather wonderful Dictionary of Slang offers the phrase both with and without trousers, as it were, defining it as "boastful and without just reason, eg 'you shouldn't pay any attention to him, he's all mouth and no trousers'." I wonder if there is an analogy here to "all fur coat and no knickers", which is defined as "of a woman, all superficial appearance and no real substance beneath".
Wiktionary offers the following etymology: "mouth, meaning 'insolence' or 'an insolent person' and trousers, meaning 'a pushy sexual bravado'. The phrase originated in northern England." The definition is "superficial, engaging in empty, boastful talk, but not of real substance". It describes "all mouth and no trousers" as a corruption of "all mouth and trousers", and for good measure suggests that the American English equivalent is "all hat [or 'big hat'] and no cattle". We are also given a translation into Finnish (Ei suuret sanat suuta halkaise) - surely the last word? Well, no, because wordreference.com hosts a fascinating discussion on possible French translations, from the prosaic (parler beaucoup mais ne rien faire) to the more evocative il ne pisse pas loin.
The most exhaustive discussion of the subject I have found, however, is in Michael Quinion's book Port Out, Starboard Home (Penguin, 2005), quoted at the excellent languagehat website: "all mouth and trousers: This strange expression comes from the north of England and is used, mainly by women in my experience, as a sharp-tongued and effective putdown of a certain kind of pushy, over-confident male. It's a wonderful example of metonymy ('a container for the thing contained') ... What is interesting about the saying from a folk etymological point of view is that its opaqueness has led its modern users to reinterpret it as 'all mouth and no trousers'."
A commenter adds: "I think the metonymy is ironic the way I always heard it – all mouth and trousers implying the 'empty' container – all front and bravado, but no brains or balls (or penis if you prefer)."
Which may be a good place to leave it. My 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.
Explore more on these topicsShareReuse this contentncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tbTEoKyaqpSerq96wqikaKWVmbaie8yipZ1lqaTCs3nLmqWgrZGcsnB%2Bj2pnaJmlnHxzgo6ao6VlnaTCtbSMmqWdZaSnvLa%2FxKuqZqWZo7Fuxc6uqWakkaO0tq3Gng%3D%3D