| Who | When |
Messages | |
|
|
|
| george scriban
|
1
|
 |
|
03-11-2003 05:55 PM ET (US)
|
|
is it "butt naked?" i always thought it was "buck naked."
|
bungatron
|
2
|
 |
|
03-11-2003 06:16 PM ET (US)
|
|
in QTVR, CTRL and SHIFT control the "Zhu Ming".
thank you!
|
| blunder
|
3
|
 |
|
03-11-2003 08:36 PM ET (US)
|
|
down here in oz it is butt naked... guess we don,t have too many deer down here, so don't often see naked bucks.....
|
| peoplepop
|
4
|
 |
|
03-11-2003 09:01 PM ET (US)
|
|
Didn't Patrick McGuan...
|
| doggo
|
5
|
 |
|
03-12-2003 07:55 AM ET (US)
|
|
Yeah, can we just quit saying "butt naked". It's "buck naked" for pete's sake. "Butt naked" was some ignoramus' mis-hearing of "buck naked" and it's been propagated like mad. It sounds stupid.
|
Dan Geiser
|
6
|
 |
|
03-12-2003 09:08 AM ET (US)
|
|
"The standard expression is 'buck naked,' and the contemporary 'butt naked' is an error that will get you laughed at in some circles. However, it might be just as well if the new form were to triumph. Originally a 'buck' was a dandy, a pretentious, overdressed show-off of a man. Condescendingly applied in the U.S. to Native Americans and black slaves, it quickly acquired negative connotations. To the historically aware speaker, 'buck naked' conjures up stereotypical images of naked 'savages' or--worse--slaves laboring naked on plantations. Consider using the alternative expression 'stark naked.'" http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/butt.htmlOr as some say..."starkers!" And peoplepop's joke should read "Now we know what was chasing Patrick McGoohan". Whatever happened to literacy?
|
| doggo
|
7
|
 |
|
03-12-2003 09:49 AM ET (US)
|
|
Good point Dan, "stark naked" is better. I like "starkers" a lot, I forgot about that. Though it sounds pretentious coming from an American since it's British slang.
|
peoplepop
|
8
|
 |
|
04-18-2003 09:17 AM ET (US)
|
|
Well done, Dan; you're clever.
|