A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers
... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipes].
...but...
"a Pair of Panties" ?????
"Keep your pantyhose on." ------- [The Abyss] quote
Clip.Cafe
https://clip.cafe › the-abyss-1989 › keep-pantyhose-on
Actors. Virgil 'bud' Brigman by Ed Harris ·
00:12. Starting our descent along the umbilical.
Le 01/07/2024 à 04:44, HenHanna a écrit :
A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers
... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipes].
...but...
"a Pair of Panties" ?????
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural - a
pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers, underpants, knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up of two bits.
I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from longer ones
(though a few minutes' searching yields no support for this; briefs were apparently in use in Ancient Egypt). [...]
Le 01/07/2024 � 06:56, Hibou a �crit :
Le 01/07/2024 � 04:44, HenHanna a �crit :
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural -
A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers
... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipes].
...but...
"a Pair of Panties" ?????
a pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers,
underpants, knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up
of two bits. I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from
longer ones (though a few minutes' searching yields no support for
this; briefs were apparently in use in Ancient Egypt). [...]
According to the OED, 'pantalon' (Italian-French) goes back to the comic character Pantaloon, who wore a kind of mediaeval onesie (~1592 onwards
in English). With the sense of 'trousers', and usually in the plural, it
goes back to ~1661. 'Panties' for menswear goes back to ~1845 ("now
rare"), for women's underpants to ~1904.
"As she laid herself out to stride, the other fellows used to get a fine exhibition of absolutely naked girl from the waist down (for panties
were the rare exception, and not the rule then)" - 'Sydney Sportsman', 1904/08/24.
Le 01/07/2024 � 04:44, HenHanna a �crit :
A pair of pants,��� or��� A pair of trousers
���������������� ... ok because each Pair kinda looks like� [2 pipes].
�� ...but...
������������ "a Pair of Panties" ?????
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural - a
pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers, underpants, knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up of two bits.
I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from longer ones
(though a few minutes' searching yields no support for this; briefs were apparently in use in Ancient Egypt).
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
Le 01/07/2024 à 04:44, HenHanna a écrit :
A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers
... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipes].
...but...
"a Pair of Panties" ?????
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural - a
pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers, underpants, knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up of two bits.
I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from longer ones
(though a few minutes' searching yields no support for this; briefs were apparently in use in Ancient Egypt).
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
In article <v5tgf1$ukmm$[email protected]>, vpaereru- [email protected]d says...
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
Like the skirt, the dress, the petticoat.
It's a mystery why men don't wear a petticoat under
those itchy wool kilts.
Le 01/07/2024 à 04:44, HenHanna a écrit :
A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers
... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipes].
...but...
"a Pair of Panties" ?????
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural - a
pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers, underpants, knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up of two bits.
I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from longer ones
(though a few minutes' searching yields no support for this; briefs were apparently in use in Ancient Egypt).
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
In article <v5tgf1$ukmm$[email protected]>, vpaereru- [email protected]d says...
Le 01/07/2024 à 04:44, HenHanna a écrit :
A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers
... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipes].
...but...
"a Pair of Panties" ?????
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural - a
pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers, underpants,
knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up of two bits.
Despite which, the bra is singular.
I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from longer ones
(though a few minutes' searching yields no support for this; briefs were
apparently in use in Ancient Egypt).
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
Like the skirt, the dress, the petticoat.
It's a mystery why men don't wear a petticoat under
those itchy wool kilts.
Knickers, but the most abbreviated version is called 'a thong'.
P.S. What do Australian women call those, since the term "thong" is
already taken?
Hibou <[email protected]d> wrote:
Le 01/07/2024 � 13:00, Janet a �crit :
In article <v5tgf1$ukmm$[email protected]>, vpaereru-
[email protected]d says...
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one
hole.
Like the skirt, the dress, the petticoat.
It's a mystery why men don't wear a petticoat under those itchy
wool kilts.
In truth, I don't know what Scotsmen wear under their kilts, and I
shrink from enquiring.
The proverbial wind at the top of Waverley Steps might reveal
all...
On 2024-07-01, Sam Plusnet <[email protected]> wrote:
Knickers, but the most abbreviated version is called 'a thong'.
P.S. What do Australian women call those, since the term "thong"
is already taken?
G-string?
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/07/24 06:47, Sn!pe wrote:
Nitpick: I wrote none of the quoted material below. [grump]
On 02/07/24 08:17, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-07-01, Sam Plusnet <[email protected]> wrote:
Knickers, but the most abbreviated version is called 'a thong'.
P.S. What do Australian women call those, since the term "thong"
is already taken?
G-string?
My wife agrees.
Thanks to both of you, by the way, for jogging my memory. I had a tune running through my head this morning, and had a mental block trying to
recall its name. It turned out to be Hair on a G-string.
Now I'm going to have to track down the sheet music so that I can learn
it on guitar.
On 01/07/2024 07:56, Hibou wrote:
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
While in Aberdeen, the question arose: "what's the difference between a
kilt and a skirt? What do Scottish women wear?"
The wittiest answer I got was that Scotsmen call it a 'kilt' to avoid
the embarrassment of having to admit that they are wearing a skirt.
Le 01/07/2024 à 12:38, occam a écrit :
On 01/07/2024 07:56, Hibou wrote:
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
While in Aberdeen, the question arose: "what's the difference between a
kilt and a skirt? What do Scottish women wear?"
The wittiest answer I got was that Scotsmen call it a 'kilt' to avoid
the embarrassment of having to admit that they are wearing a skirt.
That may well be true; certainly one encounters considerable resistance
among Scots, both men and women, if one calls a kilt a skirt. This, I
think, is just a matter of time and place. At other times and places, it
has been and is normal for men to wear skirts - Roman legionnaires did,
for instance.
According to the OED, the noun 'kilt' (~1746...) comes from the verb 'to kilt' (~1340...), at first meaning to tuck (skirts etc.) up round the
body, and later also to gather in vertical pleats....
"I'll kilt my coats aboon my knee, And follow my love thro' the water" - Burns, 1788.
I have heard a tale of Scots soldiers in the First World War, of water freezing on the hems of their kilts and chafing their legs raw. Just the thought makes one wince.
On 02/07/24 06:47, Sn!pe wrote:
Hibou <[email protected]d> wrote:
Le 01/07/2024 � 13:00, Janet a �crit :
In article <v5tgf1$ukmm$[email protected]>, vpaereru-
[email protected]d says...
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one
hole.
Like the skirt, the dress, the petticoat.
It's a mystery why men don't wear a petticoat under those itchy
wool kilts.
In truth, I don't know what Scotsmen wear under their kilts, and I
shrink from enquiring.
Kilts strike me as particularly unsuited to the Scottish climate. A cold
wind up the kilt would make anyone shrink.
The proverbial wind at the top of Waverley Steps might reveal
all...
I gather that kilts are quite heavy, presumably as a guard against their blowing up.
On 02/07/24 08:17, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-07-01, Sam Plusnet <[email protected]> wrote:
Knickers, but the most abbreviated version is called 'a thong'.
P.S. What do Australian women call those, since the term "thong"
is already taken?
G-string?
My wife agrees.
Thanks to both of you, by the way, for jogging my memory. I had a tune running through my head this morning, and had a mental block trying to
recall its name. It turned out to be Hair on a G-string.
Now I'm going to have to track down the sheet music so that I can learn
it on guitar.
Le 01/07/2024 à 06:56, Hibou a écrit :
Le 01/07/2024 à 04:44, HenHanna a écrit :
A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers
... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipes].
...but...
"a Pair of Panties" ?????
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural - a
pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers, underpants,
knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up of two bits.
I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from longer ones
(though a few minutes' searching yields no support for this; briefs were
apparently in use in Ancient Egypt). [...]
According to the OED, 'pantalon' (Italian-French) goes back to the comic character Pantaloon, who wore a kind of mediaeval onesie (~1592 onwards
in English). With the sense of 'trousers', and usually in the plural, it
goes back to ~1661. 'Panties' for menswear goes back to ~1845 ("now
rare"), for women's underpants to ~1904.
"As she laid herself out to stride, the other fellows used to get a fine exhibition of absolutely naked girl from the waist down (for panties
were the rare exception, and not the rule then)" - 'Sydney Sportsman', 1904/08/24.
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Sn!pe declared ...
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/07/24 10:18, Sn!pe wrote:
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/07/24 06:47, Sn!pe wrote:
Nitpick: I wrote none of the quoted material below. [grump]
Sorry, my mistake.
Thanks :)
What /is/ the suggested protocol for responding to a post through
anther's followup? Sometimes you can pop back and find the post
you're responding to, but sometimes you can't, and sometimes you're
think you're going to respond to both authors but then you don't.
I would be tempted to change the attribution line to "Snipe quoted:"
because that respects the threading. Would you prefer that the
attribution line is removed completely, but the quoted portions
retain the full amount of guzintas? Is there something else you
recommend?
Le 01/07/2024 à 12:38, occam a écrit :
On 01/07/2024 07:56, Hibou wrote:
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
While in Aberdeen, the question arose: "what's the difference between a
kilt and a skirt? What do Scottish women wear?"
The wittiest answer I got was that Scotsmen call it a 'kilt' to avoid
the embarrassment of having to admit that they are wearing a skirt.
That may well be true; certainly one encounters considerable resistance
among Scots, both men and women, if one calls a kilt a skirt.
This, I
think, is just a matter of time and place. At other times and places, it
has been and is normal for men to wear skirts - Roman legionnaires did,
for instance.
'Panties' for menswear goes back to ~1845 ("now
rare"), for women's underpants to ~1904.
"As she laid herself out to stride, the other fellows used to get a fine exhibition of absolutely naked girl from the waist down (for panties
were the rare exception, and not the rule then)" - 'Sydney Sportsman', 1904/08/24.
In article <v5vdu6$19tmo$[email protected]>,
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
I gather that kilts are quite heavy, presumably as a guard against their
blowing up.
They are heavy because of the material - wool - that is used.
Hibou quoted:
"As she laid herself out to stride, the other fellows used to get a fine
exhibition of absolutely naked girl from the waist down (for panties
were the rare exception, and not the rule then)" - 'Sydney Sportsman',
1904/08/24.
To when may the use of 'naked girl' as a mass noun go back?
charles <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <v5vdu6$19tmo$[email protected]>,
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
I gather that kilts are quite heavy, presumably as a guard against their >>> blowing up.
They are heavy because of the material - wool - that is used.
I was told that they're heavy largely because they're enormous when fully unfolded, something that isn't apparent from the usual display.
Hibou <[email protected]d> wrote:
Le 01/07/2024 à 12:38, occam a écrit :
On 01/07/2024 07:56, Hibou wrote:
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
While in Aberdeen, the question arose: "what's the difference between a
kilt and a skirt? What do Scottish women wear?"
The wittiest answer I got was that Scotsmen call it a 'kilt' to avoid
the embarrassment of having to admit that they are wearing a skirt.
That may well be true; certainly one encounters considerable resistance
among Scots, both men and women, if one calls a kilt a skirt.
I'd say they're incredibly touchy about it.
This, I
think, is just a matter of time and place. At other times and places, it
has been and is normal for men to wear skirts - Roman legionnaires did,
for instance.
From what I can tell, skirts and dresses were the standard garments for blokes pretty much everywhere until very recently. It was women with
trousers that were considered unnatural.
Hibou <[email protected]d> wrote:
'Panties' for menswear goes back to ~1845 ("now
rare"), for women's underpants to ~1904.
"As she laid herself out to stride, the other fellows used to get a fine
exhibition of absolutely naked girl from the waist down (for panties
were the rare exception, and not the rule then)" - 'Sydney Sportsman',
1904/08/24.
To when may the use of 'naked girl' as a mass noun go back?
Le 01/07/2024 � 12:38, occam a �crit :
On 01/07/2024 07:56, Hibou wrote:
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
While in Aberdeen, the question arose: "what's the difference between a kilt and a skirt? What do Scottish women wear?"
The wittiest answer I got was that Scotsmen call it a 'kilt' to avoid
the embarrassment of having to admit that they are wearing a skirt.
That may well be true; certainly one encounters considerable resistance
among Scots, both men and women, if one calls a kilt a skirt. This, I
think, is just a matter of time and place. At other times and places, it
has been and is normal for men to wear skirts - Roman legionnaires did,
for instance.
According to the OED, the noun 'kilt' (~1746...) comes from the verb 'to kilt' (~1340...), at first meaning to tuck (skirts etc.) up round the
body, and later also to gather in vertical pleats....
"I'll kilt my coats aboon my knee, And follow my love thro' the water" - Burns, 1788.
Subject: Re: "a Pair of Panties" ?????
From: charles <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.lang, alt.usage.english
In article <v5vdu6$19tmo$[email protected]>,
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/07/24 06:47, Sn!pe wrote:
Hibou <[email protected]d> wrote:
Le 01/07/2024 � 13:00, Janet a �crit :
In article <v5tgf1$ukmm$[email protected]>, vpaereru-
[email protected]d says...
I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one
hole.
Like the skirt, the dress, the petticoat.
It's a mystery why men don't wear a petticoat under those itchy
wool kilts.
In truth, I don't know what Scotsmen wear under their kilts, and I
shrink from enquiring.
Kilts strike me as particularly unsuited to the Scottish climate. A cold wind up the kilt would make anyone shrink.
It's a 20th Century falacy that no underwear is worn under a kilt. It stems from the War Office, in WW1, gforgetting to put underpants on their uniform list. Think about hygene.
Our postman Jamie always delivered the mail wearing the
great kilt... summer, winter, pouring rain. He told me the
cold exposure made his legs tougher and hairier, a better
look for his side-line in historic (Scottish) re-
enactments and film. He was an extra in Braveheart.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 16:05:48 +0100, Janet <[email protected]> wrote:
Our postman Jamie always delivered the mail wearing the great
kilt... summer, winter, pouring rain. He told me the cold exposure
made his legs tougher and hairier, a better look for his side-line
in historic (Scottish) re- enactments and film. He was an extra in
Braveheart.
I have never heard that people develop a heavier pelt, like the
winter coat of many furry animals, when exposed to cold weather.
But I have long assumed that hard fabrics (e.g., hard denim jeans)
can rub enough to remove hair.
The kilt today has the pleats sewn in place. It's
usually made to measure.
Historically it was the belted plaid, or great kilt
(feileadh mòr), one size fits all. A long unsewn length of
plaid loosely gathered up and held in place with a belt,
leaving the rest of the length loose to hang over one
shoulder and use as a cloak or head covering.
Our postman Jamie always delivered the mail wearing the
great kilt... summer, winter, pouring rain. He told me the
cold exposure made his legs tougher and hairier, a better
look for his side-line in historic (Scottish) re-
enactments and film. He was an extra in Braveheart.
From what I can tell, skirts and dresses were the standard garments for blokes pretty much everywhere until very recently. It was women with
trousers that were considered unnatural.
Wednesday, Hibou quipped:
So at last we know what Scotsmen have under their kilts: hairy legs.
Well, there's those socks they carry the dagger in. And some sort of leather wrapper around the socks.
Le 03/07/2024 à 14:09, Antonio Marques a écrit :
From what I can tell, skirts and dresses were the standard garments for
blokes pretty much everywhere until very recently. It was women with
trousers that were considered unnatural.
I suspect it's a matter of technology. A skirt is simpler to make than a
pair of trousers, so would be the natural choice for primitive Man.
We've now reached the point where we can make sophisticated Woman's
synthetic elastic leggings.
Le 01/07/2024 à 04:44, HenHanna a écrit :
A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers
... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipes].
...but...
"a Pair of Panties" ?????
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural - a
pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers, underpants, knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up of two bits.
I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from longer ones
(though a few minutes' searching yields no support for this; briefs were apparently in use in Ancient Egypt).
On 2024-07-04, Hibou wrote:
Le 03/07/2024 à 14:09, Antonio Marques a écrit :
From what I can tell, skirts and dresses were the standard garments for >>> blokes pretty much everywhere until very recently. It was women with
trousers that were considered unnatural.
I suspect it's a matter of technology. A skirt is simpler to make than a
pair of trousers, so would be the natural choice for primitive Man.
We've now reached the point where we can make sophisticated Woman's
synthetic elastic leggings.
The Romans, however, thought they were sophisticated with their
tunics, & that only barbarians wore trousers.
Op 1/07/2024 om 7:56 schreef Hibou:
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the
plural - a pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses...
trousers, underpants, knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate
or are made up of two bits. I suppose the briefer garments
inherited the plural from longer ones (though a few minutes'
searching yields no support for this; briefs were apparently in use
in Ancient Egypt).
Why does English name all these things as pairs, being a single
object? Others like French have a few (lunettes, ciseaux). Others
like Dutch have none of it in plural or "dual". Any historic reason?
Wednesday, Hibou quipped:
Le 03/07/2024 à 16:05, Janet a écrit :
[...]
Our postman Jamie always delivered the mail wearing the
great kilt... summer, winter, pouring rain. He told me the
cold exposure made his legs tougher and hairier, a better
look for his side-line in historic (Scottish) re-
enactments and film. He was an extra in Braveheart.
So at last we know what Scotsmen have under their kilts: hairy legs.
Well, there's those socks they carry the dagger in. And some sort of
leather wrapper around the socks.
On 04/07/2024 09:57, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-07-04, Hibou wrote:
Le 03/07/2024 à 14:09, Antonio Marques a écrit :
From what I can tell, skirts and dresses were the standard garments for >>>> blokes pretty much everywhere until very recently. It was women with
trousers that were considered unnatural.
I suspect it's a matter of technology. A skirt is simpler to make than a >>> pair of trousers, so would be the natural choice for primitive Man.
We've now reached the point where we can make sophisticated Woman's
synthetic elastic leggings.
The Romans, however, thought they were sophisticated with their
tunics, & that only barbarians wore trousers.
But those who (for example) guarded Hadrian's Wall soon discovered why trousers were a Good Thing.
Old English had a three-way singular/dual/plural classification,
Wednesday, Hibou quipped:
Le 03/07/2024 � 16:05, Janet a �crit :
[...]
Our postman Jamie always delivered the mail wearing the great
kilt... summer, winter, pouring rain. He told me the cold
exposure made his legs tougher and hairier, a better look for
his side-line in historic (Scottish) re- enactments and film. He
was an extra in Braveheart.
So at last we know what Scotsmen have under their kilts: hairy
legs.
Well, there's those socks they carry the dagger in. And some sort
of leather wrapper around the socks.
On 2024-07-05, Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
Old English had a three-way singular/dual/plural classification,
Only the personal pronouns in the first and second person had dual
forms, nothing else did. Nouns, adjectives, and verbs only
distinguished singular and plural.
On 02/07/24 08:17, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-07-01, Sam Plusnet <[email protected]> wrote:
Knickers, but the most abbreviated version is called 'a thong'.
P.S. What do Australian women call those, since the term "thong"
is already taken?
G-string?
My wife agrees.
Thanks to both of you, by the way, for jogging my memory. I had a tune running through my head this morning, and had a mental block trying to
recall its name. It turned out to be Hair on a G-string.
But of course none of this explains why those objects are singular in
some languages and plural in others.
Not an explanation, but it seems like a demonstration of how English
likes to see things in "double" ;-)
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
But of course none of this explains why those objects are singular in
some languages and plural in others.
Or country. In Brazil, inexplicably, they refer to seeing glasses with the plural noun and a singular article, e.g. _um óculos_ which sounds like 'a glasses' (note that things like your/the are inflected for number even in Brazil, so the weirdness is more conspicuous than this).
wugi <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
Not an explanation, but it seems like a demonstration of how English
likes to see things in "double" ;-)
Out in the Golden State, folks toss around "null and void" in certain
situations, maybe 'cause one word alone doesn't cut the mustard.
- Another way how English likes to see things in "double" ;-)
In the City of Light, they're all about "aujourd'hui" instead of plain
old "hui."
Maybe sometimes people just feel "panties" is too short!
On Friday or thereabouts, wugi asked ...
Op 4/07/2024 om 19:09 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-07-04 17:03:35 +0000, wugi said:
Op 1/07/2024 om 7:56 schreef Hibou:
Le 01/07/2024 � 04:44, HenHanna a �crit :
A pair of pants,��� or��� A pair of trousers
����������������� ... ok because each Pair kinda looks like� [2 pipes]. >>>>>>
��� ...but...
������������� "a Pair of Panties" ?????
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural - a >>>>> pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers, underpants, >>>>> knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up of two bits. >>>>> I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from longer ones >>>>> (though a few minutes' searching yields no support for this; briefs
were apparently in use in Ancient Egypt).
[...]
Why does English name all these things as pairs, being a single object? >>>> Others like French have a few (lunettes, ciseaux).
But pantalon is singular, though the English word derived from it,
pantaloons,is plural.
Not an explanation, but it seems like a demonstration of how English
likes to see things in "double" ;-)
Others like Dutch have none of it in plural or "dual".
Even twins are just one "tweeling".
What is term for each individual twin?
Any historic reason?
Nah, happened mostly in the quiet times.
/dps
On Friday or thereabouts, wugi asked ...
Op 4/07/2024 om 19:09 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-07-04 17:03:35 +0000, wugi said:
Op 1/07/2024 om 7:56 schreef Hibou:
Le 01/07/2024 à 04:44, HenHanna a écrit :
A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers
... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipes].
...but...
"a Pair of Panties" ?????
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural - a >>>>> pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers, underpants, >>>>> knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up of two bits. I >>>>> suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from longer ones
(though a few minutes' searching yields no support for this; briefs were >>>>> apparently in use in Ancient Egypt).
[...]
Why does English name all these things as pairs, being a single object? >>>> Others like French have a few (lunettes, ciseaux).
But pantalon is singular, though the English word derived from it,
pantaloons,is plural.
Not an explanation, but it seems like a demonstration of how English likes to
see things in "double" ;-)
Others like Dutch have none of it in plural or "dual".
Even twins are just one "tweeling".
What is term for each individual twin?
Any historic reason?
Nah, happened mostly in the quiet times.
/dps
Others like Dutch have none of it in plural or "dual".
Even twins are just one "tweeling".
What is term for each individual twin?
Eén van een tweeling, one of the twins.
Fri, 05 Jul 2024 15:25:52 -0700: Snidely <[email protected]>
scribeva:
On Friday or thereabouts, wugi asked ...
Op 4/07/2024 om 19:09 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-07-04 17:03:35 +0000, wugi said:
Op 1/07/2024 om 7:56 schreef Hibou:
Le 01/07/2024 à 04:44, HenHanna a écrit :
A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers
... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipes].
...but...
"a Pair of Panties" ?????
There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural - a >>>>>> pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers, underpants, >>>>>> knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up of two bits. I
suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from longer ones >>>>>> (though a few minutes' searching yields no support for this; briefs were >>>>>> apparently in use in Ancient Egypt).
[...]
Why does English name all these things as pairs, being a single object? >>>>> Others like French have a few (lunettes, ciseaux).
But pantalon is singular, though the English word derived from it,
pantaloons,is plural.
Not an explanation, but it seems like a demonstration of how English likes to
see things in "double" ;-)
Others like Dutch have none of it in plural or "dual".
Even twins are just one "tweeling".
What is term for each individual twin?
Eén van een tweeling, one of the twins.
On 6/07/2024 7:51 a.m., Stefan Ram wrote:
wugi <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
Not an explanation, but it seems like a demonstration of how English
likes to see things in "double" ;-)
Out in the Golden State, folks toss around "null and void" in certain
situations, maybe 'cause one word alone doesn't cut the mustard.
- Another way how English likes to see things in "double" ;-)
"Null and void" goes back to the 17th century. It's legal language,
which often likes to pair words like this, sometimes with subtly
different senses.
Ross Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
"Null and void" goes back to the 17th century. It's legal language,Not ecclesiastical?
which often likes to pair words like this, sometimes with subtly
different senses.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:24:33 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,360 |
