Fun Stuff > CHATTER
English is weird
Kugai:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans
Papersatan:
I think those examples still fit what I was saying, and maybe I was explaining it poorly (and it annoys me that second site is inconsistent with the usage).
I see pant as a cataloging word, so I read "This is a relaxed fit ladies pant, with a straight leg" pant as describing the category of garment. It would still be appropriate to use it that way when listing an item online, because that is not a listing for a single pair of pants. There are dozens, hundreds or even thousands of items available under that one listing, and so the description is general.
If I were working in a store I might hold up an individual pair and say, "This pant would look nice with that top." but I would be referring not to that particular pair of pants, but to the whole rack of them... all the the pants with that item number as it were. "This style would look good" or "this product" not "this item"
If I you tried a pair of the pants I might ask "how did that pant look?" again, not referring to that particular pair, but that style, that item. How did those pants fit, that particular pair. When I ring you up, I would say, here are your pants, because now they are a particular item, you have bought a pair of pants which are a relaxed fit, ladies pant."
Maybe others don't hear this distinction, or use the word to make it, but I always do.
Barmymoo:
I was going to say "we just say trousers" but then I realised I wasn't sure what a trouser was. Except that we talk about trouser presses - not trousers presses.
pwhodges:
Also scissor sharpeners.
Just accept it and go with the flow.
The Seldom Killer:
--- Quote from: mtmerrick on 08 Jul 2013, 02:11 ---... Let's say you get a gash across your pants leg. Do you say "there's a tear in my pant" or there's a tear in my pants leg"? ...
--- End quote ---
Depending on where you are in England, you might get a completely different reaction, but that's more to do with slang and dialect.
Back on topic though, I picked up this little nugget off of a place called English Forums
--- Quote ---According to several costume historians who have helped me with this reply, the answer to all this conventional plurality is very simple. Before the days of modern tailoring, such garments, whether underwear or outerwear, were indeed made in two parts, one for each leg. The pieces were put on each leg separately and then wrapped and tied or belted at the waist (just like cowboys’ chaps). The plural usage persisted out of habit even after the garments had become physically one piece. However, a shirt was a single piece of cloth, so it was always singular.
--- End quote ---
Not sure of when the combinative garment came about but it suggests that there is a lot of anachronism in film in this area.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version