I know. But it's the same idea.Originally posted by: amoeba
this isn't a parody thread, although I can see why it can be construed as one.
Originally posted by: amoeba
should there be a poll since you guys don't seem to come to a consensus.
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: amoeba
should there be a poll since you guys don't seem to come to a consensus.
Yes.
I've convinced myself that buck naked is probably the original, but since butt naked is now in common usage it is also acceptable. My reasoning is this - if the original phrase was buck naked, it's not unlikely that someone could mishear it and think it was butt naked, since the butt is a part of the body normally covered. But if the original was butt naked, I can't imagine someone mishearing that and assuming the person said buck naked - it just doesn't make any sense. Therefore the original and proper phrase is buck naked becuase it makes the least sense.
Originally posted by: Yossarian
"butt naked" is said by the same sort of people who write "could of".
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.?