XPost: alt.usage.english
From: snidely.too@gmail.com
On Monday or thereabouts, Janet asked ...
> In article , vpaereru-
> unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid says...
>>
>> 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.
>
> Despite which, the bra is singular.
>
>
>> 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).
>>
>> I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.
>
> Like the skirt, the dress, the petticoat.
>
> It's a mystery why men don't wear a petticoat under
> those itchy wool kilts.
Wouldn't a petticoat get damp and chilly from the mists on the
Highlandd Hills? I've learned through stories of old lumberman in the
Northwest [1] woods that woolen union suits were warm but not itchy
once the bracken got you soaked through.
>
> Janet
[1] Either the Old Northwest or the Pacific Northwest, which had a
period of overlap of similar logging techniques, although running the
river was not as common in the PNW. Also, I think there were fewer
lumber railroads in the Old Northwest because the trees began to play
out before logging locomotives became common, but ICBW.
/dps "has woolen socks"
--
Trust, but verify.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
