Until the late 17th century, leg garments were made in two parts, one sleeve of fabric for each leg, so calling them a "pair" made perfect sense.
2006-11-08 01:59:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Drewood 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
This was asked and answered on Yahoo Answers a few weeks ago:
Best Answer - Chosen By Voters
We've heard it's because pants and shorts have two legs. But shirts have two sleeves, and you don't have a "pair of shirts." Hmm, so much for that theory.
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.
2006-11-08 01:59:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by JX 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
by using fact saying pant sounds weird and wonderful. you ought to characteristic to that so people regularly upload the "s" or pair of pants. they are pronounced as a pair of pants by using fact they ought to legs. saying "hi, Ma, seem at my new pant!" nicely what handed off to the different leg or gee that sounds somewhat weird and wonderful.
2016-12-28 15:59:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have absolutely no idea but I wish you hadn't asked the question because now it is driving me crazy too. My only thought is that the words have roots in different languages and we have adopted the rules associated with these roots. Try looking them up in an etymological dictionary.
2006-11-08 01:59:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Sounds like a very intriguing question worthy of some personal follow-up to get resolved. Let me know when would be convenient for you, for me to come over & review the evidence with you personally.
2006-11-08 02:06:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Justin 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nowadays the fashionistas are calling them "a pant" anyway.
What thumbs down?! You didn't watch Project Runway???
2006-11-08 02:01:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kacky 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Good question, I'm stumped. Never even thought of that before....
My answer is.......................Not Sure.
2006-11-08 03:27:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Bones 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
wow i never thought of it like that
2006-11-08 01:56:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by maze 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
lol... good point.
2006-11-08 01:58:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋