Help! The word "pants," or a "pair of pants." Why is pants plural with an "S?" A shirt is only one garment.

Question

Why not a pair of shirt(s) --one garment. I assumed because two legs go in a "pair" of pants. However, two arms go into a shirt.

Answer 1

I’ve looked at the entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, which suggests that the form pair of pants was standard right from its earliest use. Indeed, words for nether garments all seem to have been commonly plural throughout their history, often prefixed by pair of ...: breeches, shorts, drawers, panties, tights, knickers (short for knickerbockers), and trousers.

Pants is short for pantaloons, also plural, which in their very earliest incarnations were nearer stage tights; their name comes from a Venetian character in Italian commedia dell’arte who was the butt of the clown’s jokes and who always appeared as a foolish old man wearing pantaloons. Commentators referred to them when they first appeared as being a combination of breeches and stockings. Later the word was applied to fashionable tight-fitting trousers.

Trousers came into the language in the seventeenth century from the Gaelic trowse, a singular word for a slightly different garment rather more like breeches; a later version of it was trews, taken to be a plural because of the final s. Breeches has been plural throughout its recorded history, a long one (it dates from at least the year 1200).

According to several costume historians who have helped me with this reply, the answer to all this conventional plurality is very simple. Before the days of modern tailoring, such garments, whether underwear or outerwear, were indeed made in two parts, one for each leg. The pieces were put on each leg separately and then wrapped and tied or belted at the waist (just like cowboys’ chaps). The plural usage persisted out of habit even after the garments had become physically one piece. However, a shirt was a single piece of cloth, so it was always singular.

It’s worth noting that the posher type of tailor, such as in London’s Savile Row, still often refers to a trouser and the singular pant and tight are not unknown in clothing store terminology in America—so the plural is not universal.

Answer 2

I think it probably has something to do with the idea that even though there are only two pant legs in a pair of pants, without the pantlegs you don't really have anything close to pants.

Conversely, a shirt can exist without sleeves, and though it may be called a sleeveless shirt or a tanktop or whatever the overall amount of fabric in a sleeveless shirt as compared to a shirt with full-length long sleeves is still quite substantial.

If you were to take the pantlegs off a pair of pants, you would not be left with very much of a garment at all.

Of course, this whole thing could have something to do with etymology (the origins of words) and how the words evolved over time. Take this for what you will.

Answer 3

According to The Mavens' Word of the Day, pants in the plural form is an Americanism first recorded in 1840. The word is short for pantaloons, a term that originated with a character in Italian commedia dell'arte who wore both stockings and breeches.

World Wide Words states that these types of clothing (pants, underwear, shorts, tights -- or the equivalent terms for them) were made in two parts. One part for each leg, then belted in the middle, somewhat like chaps on cowboys. Over time, they ended up as one piece of clothing, but the habit of referring to the old "pair" persisted.

This reference isn't universal, however. The clothing industry often uses the singular form of pant, but not consistently. So pick your favorite, singular or plural -- you'll still put them on one leg at a time

Answer 4

Those nouns are called plurale tantum, plural nouns which apply to sets, pairs, or groups of items which function as a single unit--pants, scissors, goods, genitals, clothes, rabies, bagpipes. The only way to make them singular is to add a qualifying word which defines a piece or single item, i.e., a pair of pants, an item of clothing, like that.

Answer 5

Pants refers to a garment with two legs or "openings", ie, "panties".

RE: Pant leg. One leg of a pair of pants.

"A pair" of pants refers to one garment. Two pairs refers to two garments.

How about "hair"? One hair or a whole head "of"?

Is your hair, (one), or all falling out?

English, HUH?

Answer 6

Fashionista's would say, "You need a Pant to go with that blouse or shirt." That would be the proper word.....PANTS is just a slang term for pant. (Pant leg singular.) Pants (Two pant legs)

Answer 7

a "pant" actually refers to the leg, but people don't call it that.
a "pant leg" is the preferred term.
a shirt is normal, because one TORSO goes into a shirt.
arms don't always have to be inside the shirt, you could be wearing "spaghetti straps" or a "tube top".

hope this helps! haha

Answer 8

Why is it a TV set, when there is one?

A pair of scissors (ever try to cut something with half a scissors? A sciss?)

But it's not a pair of shirt. it's a pair of shirtS or a bunch of shirtS.

Answer 9

well i think it is because pants have 2 legs.

Answer 10

I wish I knew but it is a very good question