XPost: alt.usage.english   
   From: peter@pmoylan.org   
      
   On 05/07/24 03:03, wugi wrote:   
   > Op 1/07/2024 om 7:56 schreef Hibou:   
      
   >> 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).   
      
   Old English had a three-way singular/dual/plural classification,   
   although I don't think that lasted long enough to influence how things   
   were named in medireview times.   
      
   > Why does English name all these things as pairs, being a single   
   > object? Others like French have a few (lunettes, ciseaux). Others   
   > like Dutch have none of it in plural or "dual". Any historic reason?   
      
   For trousers there's a simple reason. At some stage they existed as   
   three separate pieces: two leggings, plus the bit at the top that holds   
   them together. Scissors are similar, because they are two separate arms   
   that are held together with a screw or something equivalent. Eyeglasses   
   have a single frame, but then two separate lenses have to be inserted   
   into the frame.   
      
   But of course none of this explains why those objects are singular in   
   some languages and plural in others.   
      
   --   
   Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org   
   Newcastle, NSW   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)