Claim to fame or is any publicity good publicity

[TheTeapot]

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Underpants are things you wear underneath your

Pants,

strangely ( or not so strange if you think about it )

4 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

As do scissors

Or perhaps not. Edward Scissorhands. Oddly, one scissor, two hands.

[Gladys]

Its a pair of pants because, originally, there was a separate item for each leg.  Then someone came up with the bright idea of joining the two garments together. 

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Its a pair of pants because, originally, there was a separate item for each leg.  Then someone came up with the bright idea of joining the two garments together. 

And then we got the gusseted crotch…

[John Wright]

12 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It’s a pair of pants because, originally, there was a separate item for each leg.  Then someone came up with the bright idea of joining the two garments together. 

Not sure I agree. Some words only exist in the plural. Often things that have two parts or are bifurcated.

The word pants is a plurale tantum. The OED  defines plurale tantum, which is Latin for “plural only,” as a “noun which is used only in plural form, or which is used only in plural form in a particular sense or senses.” Bifurcated items (things that can be divided into two), such as pants, fall into this category. Think of items that are usually referred to in plural—often preceded by “pair of” or something similar, even when there is only one item: pliers, glasses, scissors, sunglasses, tweezers, etc. So, pants is a type of noun that is used only in its plural form, even when there is only one item being discussed.

[Gladys]

35 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Not sure I agree. Some words only exist in the plural. Often things that have two parts or are bifurcated.

The word pants is a plurale tantum. The OED  defines plurale tantum, which is Latin for “plural only,” as a “noun which is used only in plural form, or which is used only in plural form in a particular sense or senses.” Bifurcated items (things that can be divided into two), such as pants, fall into this category. Think of items that are usually referred to in plural—often preceded by “pair of” or something similar, even when there is only one item: pliers, glasses, scissors, sunglasses, tweezers, etc. So, pants is a type of noun that is used only in its plural form, even when there is only one item being discussed.

Apart from scissors, glasses, tweezers, pliers are actually two items joined.   Mind you, a tweeze or a plier is pretty useless without its partner! 

ETA you might be right on the grammar, but it is the origin of the word that I was talking about not the geammatic definition. You easily see how someone would think how useful it would be to join two knives to make scissors, two eyeglasses to make specs etc.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Gladys

[Declan]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

Pants come as pairs.

So do legs. But I’ve never heard of some one getting legsless. 
 

 

[Declan]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

Pants come as pairs.

And arms.
 

 
 

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Declan

[Declan]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

Pants come as pairs.

But this post came in threes. 
 

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Declan

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

“ Underpants are things you wear underneath “Pants,

strangely ( or not so strange if you think about it)

Right the the words in quotation marks are mine to replicate John’s posting. I don’t know how to do that whole thing.

No, underpants are things you were underneath your trousers. “Pants” is one of those horrible Americanisms, bifurcated or not, invading our language

[John Wright]

9 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Right the the words in quotation marks are mine to replicate John’s posting. I don’t know how to do that whole thing.

No, underpants are things you were underneath your trousers. “Pants” is one of those horrible Americanisms, bifurcated or not, invading our language

No. Pants is the English original, not an Americanism. A contraction of pantaloons. Dates back to 15c

And trousers in the clothing sense is another of those plural only nouns. It’s etymology is from a Gaelic word in Scots, Irish & Manx which exits still in Scots English as trews.

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

No. Pants is the English original, not an Americanism. A contraction of pantaloons. Dates back to 15c

And trousers in the clothing sense is another of those plural only nouns. It’s etymology is from a Gaelic word in Scots, Irish & Manx which exits still in Scots English as trews.

Well they will always be trousers to me. Sounds much nicer.

[Zarley]

Not to be pantantic, but both pants and trousers are also used in the singular form, as in pant leg and trouser leg. You don't get that with, say, scissors. 

[quilp]

Plurale tantum...

[John Wright]

19 minutes ago, Zarley said:

Not to be pantantic, but both pants and trousers are also used in the singular form, as in pant leg and trouser leg. You don't get that with, say, scissors. 

That’s because one leg is singular. As is scissor blade or sister, and then there is the oddity that Scissorhands