The workhorse word, of course, is plain-vanilla "naked." Remarkably, Bartlett's Quotations offers 49 citations of "naked" and not a single one of "nude." The most famous of these goes back to the Garden of Eden, where the first couple "were both naked and were not ashamed." Shakespeare lent the adjective to Richard III: "... And thus I clothe my naked villainy." Goya painted his "Naked Maja," a lady who might usefully have shed a few redundant pounds.

Manifestly, "naked" and "nude" are seldom interchangeable. It never would have occurred to Shakespeare to write about Richard's "nude" villainy. The line would not have scanned. References to the "nude truth" lose their sting. Writers learn such distinctions in their cradles. Moll Flanders was naked; Lady Godiva was nude.

Bud Weil of Las Vegas writes to ask about "free gift" and "for free." Viewed under the cold light of grammatical analysis, the phrases are patently redundant. It would be a strange kind of gift that was not "free." And the fawning "for" adds nothing to the 13th oyster on the platter. That beautiful bivalve was born "free" and comes to the table the same way: i.e., built into the eye-popping price on the seafood menu.