<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pair (of pants, etc.)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.word-detective.com/2008/02/12/pair-of-pants-etc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.word-detective.com/2008/02/12/pair-of-pants-etc/</link>
	<description>Semper Ubi Sub Ubi</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:19:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray Hathaway</title>
		<link>http://www.word-detective.com/2008/02/12/pair-of-pants-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-18591</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray Hathaway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 14:33:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.word-detective.com/2008/02/12/pair-of-pants-etc/#comment-18591</guid>
		<description>To the Word Detective: Do you speak from &quot;facts&quot; or do you gather your information and entries much like Wikipedia? Specifically you write:  

&quot;&quot;But “pants” in the 16th century differed from today’s jeans in that each leg was a separate garment, donned in succession and then belted together at the waist. Thus it made sense to call these “two-piece britches” a “pair” of pants...&quot;&quot;

In all the images that are on the web I can&#039;t find one where the Pantalone character dons anything close to a two piece, chap-like, garment. As a matter of fact, any pantaloons image I find, antique, new; male, female, shows nothing other than a one piece garment. The only reference to a two piece, pant-like apparel item is, in fact, CHAPS. 

You seem to speak with authority on this subject so if you don&#039;t mind would you please email me a link to something that backs up your assertion on this page? I mean, if I&#039;m wrong in my thinking, I need to stop disseminating false info. Thanks. Ray H.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- google_ad_section_start -->To the Word Detective: Do you speak from &#8220;facts&#8221; or do you gather your information and entries much like Wikipedia? Specifically you write:  </p>
<p>&#8220;&#8221;But “pants” in the 16th century differed from today’s jeans in that each leg was a separate garment, donned in succession and then belted together at the waist. Thus it made sense to call these “two-piece britches” a “pair” of pants&#8230;&#8221;"</p>
<p>In all the images that are on the web I can&#8217;t find one where the Pantalone character dons anything close to a two piece, chap-like, garment. As a matter of fact, any pantaloons image I find, antique, new; male, female, shows nothing other than a one piece garment. The only reference to a two piece, pant-like apparel item is, in fact, CHAPS. </p>
<p>You seem to speak with authority on this subject so if you don&#8217;t mind would you please email me a link to something that backs up your assertion on this page? I mean, if I&#8217;m wrong in my thinking, I need to stop disseminating false info. Thanks. Ray H.<!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

