Comments on: Pair (of pants, etc.)

By: John

John — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 22:37:54 +0000

Ray, Hope your still interested…you can find pictures here:

http://www.greydragon.org/library/underwear3.html

I found it by searching “a peire of hosen”

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:04:15 +0000

So why isn’t it “a pair of bras?”

By: Dweeb

Dweeb — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:27:10 +0000

A Pair of Glasses is easy. Remember the Monocular? One piece of glass that was held in place, often by squinting. So a pair of glasses is just that.

A pair of binoculars, is also easy. In the early form, it was a telescope. The earliest binoculars, were two telescopes bound together, hence a pair. I know that the text Bi-nocular, already compensates for two, but that’s just the way English goes.

If you accept that pants used to be separate leggings, tied or belted together (and the need of a cod-piece to cover the essentials). Two leggings (or pantaloons, as discussed above), simply became pants, and two tied together, is a pair of pants.

Panties in earlier form used to be bloomers, which had short legs attached to them. So it’s an easy reach to a pair of panties, following the lead of a pair of pants.

Tweezers, shears and scissors follow the rule that two like items are required to make them work. Also “scissors” probably stem from a Latin word “cisoria” which means a cutting instrument. Thus when two cutting instruments are connected to get leverage, you have a pair.

Remember, not everything had an exact translation when moving from one language to another. Also travelers would find an item used by a different culture, learn what the “foreigners” called the item, and bring it back home. What they called the item when the returned home, could easily have been slang, or a word that was closest in meaning. English is a hodge-podge of many other languages.

By: Bob Gotschall

Bob Gotschall — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 01:10:43 +0000

Bobby, I would say “try on these” ordinarily.

Further, while watching a behind the scene episode of one of the Brontë sisters books, the women who created the costumes pointed out that women’s undergarments consisted of two individual legging things with nothing else. Considering the weight and complication of the gowns worn back then that required other people to dress them. I think that a simple powder room break would have been impossible with anything fancier.

I have also been told that the “Can Can” dance was a lot more interesting back in the day because of this.

By: Bobby

Bobby — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:33:51 +0000

When referring to pants, would one say try these on or try this on?

By: Vern

Vern — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:32:17 +0000

@JD. It’s ‘V’ here. what Ray asked was a perfectly good question, one that I have wondered (occasionally).
By the way mate, it’s not “Geez” That refers to ‘Geezer’, I think you meant ‘Jeez’, as in a well known bloke called Jesus ;-)

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 12 May 2015 20:02:54 +0000

Ray: You do have serious issues. I researched this topic and most of which is found here is the most plausible explanation. Unfortunately, there really isn’t a way to cite the etymology of words because words and how they evolve in meaning and usage.

By: mike Perez

mike Perez — Sat, 25 Apr 2015 07:29:34 +0000

Its simple pants (named after the comedian Pantaloon) were two seperate pieces.thus a pair.trousers came into vocabulary because you tied them on time a troilus.

By: fervor

fervor — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:25:02 +0000

Pair of shorts
Pair of swimming trunks
Pair of panties
Pair of pants
Pair of blue jeans
Pair of binoculars
Pair of glasses (spectacles)
Pair of goggles
Pair of sunglasses
Pair of tweezers
Pair of shears
Pair of scissors
Pair of pantyhose
Pair of pliars
Pair of headphones
Pair of nail clippers
Pair of handcuffs

2 pairs of pantyhose are not 4 pantyhoses. :)
2 pairs of crutches are 4 crutches.

By: Rg

Rg — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:20:20 +0000

Perfectly legitimate request! I, too, would like to see a citation for what sounds like a very reasonable explanation. I just visited another site researching this same question and saw.a lot of people blathering on about different theories of the origin of this phrase. Much of what they said sounded possible, but no one cited sources. Finally I just gave up and wound up here. This looks like a better place to get an answer, but what is wrong with a citation?

By: Emma

Emma — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:01:18 +0000

As English is my second language, I have always been intrigued by the words ‘a pair of’… trousers, glasses, shorts etc. In my native tongue (Dutch) this is not used at all; a pair of pants would mean 2 pairs of pants, each with two legs ;-).
Be that as it may, back to the English explanation of a pair of trousers being two separate entities tied at the waist. I vaguely remember, many years ago, reading a historical novel where reasons for the separated trousers for men, and similarly, bloomers for women, were explained thus: Due to the dearth of toileting facilities and the voluminous clothing worn in those days, it was easier to just stand at the gutter in the street with legs spread apart and let go. (always with one eye on the windows above for maids emptying the night chamber!
I have not seen an explanation like this, anywhere, why?

By: JD

JD — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 08:28:38 +0000

Ray – Get a life. Geez dude.