What do you say for X?

[linguoboy]

[One of these days, I might go through the threads in L&L and merge some of them together to make searching them a little easier. If that happens, and I manage to find the old usage thread again, I'll merge this one into it.]

This is similar to the "How do you pronounce X?" thread or the "What do you call it?" thread, except the subject is usage rather than pronunciation or lexicon.

Inaugural question: If you are familiar with this expression, which version do you prefer?

All mouth and trousers
All mouth and no trousers

(If you aren't familiar with this expression and want to speculate on what it means or supply a corresponding expression in your own dialect, you are heartily invited to do so.)

[Ketumak]

I'm only familiar with the second. I've never heard of the first before, so couldn't comment, but I've always understood the second to mean:

He can talk the talk but he can't walk the walk

A more modern expression with similar metaphorical reference.

[Terra]

All mouth and trousers
All mouth and no trousers

Neither. Also, Americans don't say "trousers", not that I've heard a variant with "pants" instead though.

He can talk the talk but he can't walk the walk

I have heard this though.

I've also heard a similar phrase with the same meaning:
All bark and no bite.
Despite describing a dog, it's freely applied to humans.

[Gulliver]

All mouth and trousers is the one I've heard. It means gobby little nobber, or maybe being a bit rah but also being a twat. Probably uses the phrase "top bants" and supports fox hunting because it exercises the dogs.

[Zaarin]

Also, Americans don't say "trousers"

I've heard my grandparents (from rural New York) use the term "trousers," though not often. You won't hear (m)any young Americans using it, though.

[Sumelic]

I've never heard either one. Is the meaning of the second version understood to be derived from trousers/pants = balls?

[linguoboy]

I've never heard either one. Is the meaning of the second version understood to be derived from trousers/pants = balls?

I'm not sure. I've always understood the underlying metaphor as trousers = metonymic for legs = part of the body which moves = metonymic for action. Apparently, though, the original metaphor was trousers = synecdochic for flashy clothing = metonymic for flash without substance.