Pair (of pants, etc.)

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

11 comments on this post.
  1. Ray Hathaway:

    To the Word Detective: Do you speak from “facts” or do you gather your information and entries much like Wikipedia? Specifically you write:

    “”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…””

    In all the images that are on the web I can’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’t mind would you please email me a link to something that backs up your assertion on this page? I mean, if I’m wrong in my thinking, I need to stop disseminating false info. Thanks. Ray H.

  2. beatrice:

    I would to know whether they re a pair of shorts. Is right in Grammar or diction.

  3. tambria moore:

    http://studyholiness.com/doc/THE_HISTORICAL_ORIGIN_OF_PANT1.pdf The HOSE worn by men were at first two separate pieces, but as time went by, the two hose were joined, first in the back then across the front. It became necessary (and required by the CHURCH) for men to have a ?codpiece.?

  4. Fleur:

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pantaloons

  5. JD:

    Ray – Get a life. Geez dude.

  6. Emma:

    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?

  7. Rg:

    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?

  8. fervor:

    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.

  9. mike Perez:

    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.

  10. Robert:

    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.

  11. Vern:

    @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 ;-)

Leave a comment