seems very odd, sure pants hold two legs, but A shirt holds two arms... whats the difference?
2006-11-29 05:53:41 · 4 answers · asked by Wilson Wilson 3 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
I think you wear the long sleeve shirt because you want to look good. And it's just plain silly to walk around in a long sleeve shirt and not wear a pair of pants with it. They'll arrest you for that.
2006-11-29 06:32:33 · answer #1 · answered by Steve C 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because the shirt is one item and a pair of pants are two pant legs sewn together (Not sure why a person would wear just one pant leg...but I digress...) So the first is one and the second is two together
2006-11-29 06:06:00 · answer #2 · answered by mahree 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A pair of pants covers a pair of legs unless you are a unidexter.
Seriously, English is a marvellous language. But also a perverse, cantakerous one too. I love it and try not to get too exasperated with it. If we can forgive its idiotic spelling we can let this anomaly go by too. Let's face it it is fundamentally illogical and not worth cultivating an ulcer over it.
Doc. Dan.
2006-11-29 06:00:54 · answer #3 · answered by Dan S 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it's because initially they were a pair of leggings, not integral to the area of the pants that now encase your hips/butt/crotch area. See "breeks", "hose", "trousers", or "leggings". They were tied to a waistband or belt, but eventually got to where they were firmly of all one piece.
2006-11-29 06:07:43 · answer #4 · answered by mattzcoz 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋