XPost: alt.usage.english   
   From: admin@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 08:37:38 +0100, Hibou   
    wrote:   
      
   > Le 01/07/2024 à 06:56, Hibou a écrit :   
   >> Le 01/07/2024 à 04:44, HenHanna a écrit :   
   >>>   
   >>> A pair of pants,    or    A pair of trousers   
   >>>   
   >>>                   ... ok because each Pair kinda looks like  [2 pipes].   
   >>>   
   >>>     ...but...   
   >>>               "a Pair of Panties" ?????   
   >>  There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural -   
   >> a pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers,   
   >> underpants, knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up   
   >> of two bits. I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from   
   >> longer ones (though a few minutes' searching yields no support for   
   >> this; briefs were apparently in use in Ancient Egypt). [...]   
   >   
   > According to the OED, 'pantalon' (Italian-French) goes back to the comic   
   > character Pantaloon, who wore a kind of mediaeval onesie (~1592 onwards   
   > in English). With the sense of 'trousers', and usually in the plural, it   
   > goes back to ~1661. 'Panties' for menswear goes back to ~1845 ("now   
   > rare"), for women's underpants to ~1904.   
   >   
   > "As she laid herself out to stride, the other fellows used to get a fine   
   > exhibition of absolutely naked girl from the waist down (for panties   
   > were the rare exception, and not the rule then)" - 'Sydney Sportsman',   
   > 1904/08/24.   
   >   
   Cwor, pron from 1904!   
   She's now (calc: say 20 at the time) 140. Or maybe not.   
      
   Time (despite a ridiculous song by the RS) is not on anybodies side.   
   Ask any pensioner.   
      
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed, Humbug   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)