Why Pants And Not Pant at Gregory Catherine blog

Why Pants And Not Pant. Ie, it is possible to have 1 pant (half a pair), 55 pants. But the word pants is rooted in comedy. So why did that catch on? In us english, the word pants isn't a particularly funny one. Then why do we say “pants” instead of “pant”? Pants are clearly a single object. An unusual word—like “pant” where the customer expects “pants”—is supposed to make us think the item so named is more stylish (or “on. Pants, in common use, are actually collections of pairs, not a plural of pant. It's the most common term for that very common piece of clothing that covers the body from the waist to the ankle (give or take), with a separate part for each leg. And to be fair, it’s only really one industry that likes to call the whole thing a pant. Calling them a pair of pantaloons, or pants, as they were eventually known, made sense when there were two components. However, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence in reference sources to support this theory. Possibly because saying “pants” instead of “pantaloons” was still a relatively new thing. It’s a common vagary of the english language that pants—or trousers, slacks, khakis, shorts—is always presented as a plural. It’s never pant, but rather a pair of pants.

Pants are clearly a single object. The phrasing was retained even after pants were made into one complete garment. It’s a common vagary of the english language that pants—or trousers, slacks, khakis, shorts—is always presented as a plural. Or bras instead of bra? Calling them a pair of pantaloons, or pants, as they were eventually known, made sense when there were two components. In us english, the word pants isn't a particularly funny one. But the word pants is rooted in comedy. And to be fair, it’s only really one industry that likes to call the whole thing a pant. Then why do we say “pants” instead of “pant”? It’s never pant, but rather a pair of pants.

What You Need to Know About Pants and Why They Fit So Bad — Inside Out

Why Pants And Not Pant And to be fair, it’s only really one industry that likes to call the whole thing a pant. It’s never pant, but rather a pair of pants. An unusual word—like “pant” where the customer expects “pants”—is supposed to make us think the item so named is more stylish (or “on. Pants are clearly a single object. It's the most common term for that very common piece of clothing that covers the body from the waist to the ankle (give or take), with a separate part for each leg. However, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence in reference sources to support this theory. Then why do we say “pants” instead of “pant”? Possibly because saying “pants” instead of “pantaloons” was still a relatively new thing. The phrasing was retained even after pants were made into one complete garment. But the word pants is rooted in comedy. In us english, the word pants isn't a particularly funny one. Pants, in common use, are actually collections of pairs, not a plural of pant. Or bras instead of bra? So why did that catch on? Calling them a pair of pantaloons, or pants, as they were eventually known, made sense when there were two components. Ie, it is possible to have 1 pant (half a pair), 55 pants.