Fun Stuff > CHATTER

English is weird

<< < (44/240) > >>

Redball:
I assume scissors comes from cise, as in incision, etc., and that it helps to think of "them" as "cutters." But I don't know about trousers. The only place I've heard of "trouser" is in opera, but as an adjectiv e, where some parts call for a woman dressed as a man and performing a male role, a "trouser" role IIRC.

LTK:

--- Quote from: idontunderstand on 04 Mar 2013, 10:54 ---
--- Quote from: LTK on 04 Mar 2013, 10:30 ---Why does the English language insist on using the plural for objects that are quite clearly one thing? Like scissors, glasses, headphones, trousers, tweezers, things like those.

--- End quote ---
I guess the answer is obvious but I'll say it anyway: All of those have two parts. Two scissor knives, two glass lenses, two headphones joined together etc. But I guess it's not completely logical?

--- End quote ---
That's the logic behind it, yes, but what is the reason? My language is happy to say 'a scissor', 'a trouser', and 'a headphone'. The fact that a headphone contains two speakers is irrelevant.


--- Quote from: Redball on 04 Mar 2013, 12:16 ---I assume scissors comes from cise, as in incision, etc., and that it helps to think of "them" as "cutters." But I don't know about trousers. The only place I've heard of "trouser" is in opera, but as an adjective, where some parts call for a woman dressed as a man and performing a male role, a "trouser" role IIRC.

--- End quote ---
Still no reason to not call it a cutter. :-P

Redball:
Doesn't English have a reputation in Europe and elsewhere for arbitrary and capricious forms, usages, rules and habits? Here's what etymonline says about trousers, for example: 1610s, earlier trouzes (1580s), extended from trouse (1570s), with plural ending typical of things in pairs, from Gaelic or Middle Irish triubhas "close-fitting shorts," of uncertain origin. The unexplained intrusive second -r- is perhaps by influence of drawers.

Akima:

--- Quote from: LTK on 04 Mar 2013, 10:30 ---Why does the English language insist on using the plural for objects that are quite clearly one thing?

--- End quote ---
Or the singular for many objects: sheep, deer, salmon, aircraft, species etc. For that matter, why do some languages have plural forms of nouns at all?

Papersatan:
I'd like to point out that in English you can't say "a scissors" or "a trousers" either.  The come in pairs.  "trousers" is the uncountable plural, and "pair/s of trousers"  is the countable form. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version