So why do we say "pair of pants/shorts/trousers/slacks?" 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. The two pieces of woven cloth (or animal hides) were tied to a belt to hold them up.
2007-03-21 01:23:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by michelle a 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Could be that knickers is the shortened version of knickerbockers.The same also applies to pants,either male or female or underwear or top wear, the lady probably saying panties, but in the singular would be pantyhose..It's probably more a case of the accepted usage of these words rather than any strict grammatical rule.
2007-03-21 01:32:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
dats gud....
mebbe cuz 2 ppl can fit in2 a pair of knickers (if they are big enuf) but onli one person per thong....!!!!!
2007-03-21 01:29:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Gem-in-i 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
don't now but i like thongs so there not a pair anyway so that's why i can't answer this one but good question though never thought about it before .
2007-03-21 01:26:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
maybe its because you have 2 legs so you have a pair of legs
2007-03-21 01:46:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by cindy 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think its because originally knickers had legs in them, so its the same as trousers
2007-03-21 01:24:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by thebear 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
pair of trousers too!!!
i have no idea, but am looking forward to peoples answers!
2007-03-21 01:22:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by rachealuk 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
its a good point my friend but i dont know
2007-03-21 02:46:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by weirdlittlebritain 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
ask the people who invented them......hahahahahahahaha
2007-03-21 01:44:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Larisa 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Its because v all hv got 1pair of legs(2legs) ...........& not 1leg....hahahaha.
2007-03-21 01:32:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by stars 2
·
0⤊
0⤋