I don't think a pair of pants should be called a pair of pants anymore. It's one item that you put both legs into. The same would go for unmentionables. Now a pair of socks, that's still a pair because they are two different socks. But a pair of pants is only one item and should not be called a pair.
shareI'm thinking more about this and we don't call shirts or jackets pairs even though we put both arms into them. This only strengthens my argument.
shareIt's a tailoring term. When people had their clothes made for them, instead of off the rack. If there was a hole or whatever in the left leg they would un-stitch it and put on a new left pant.
shareWell. That pretty much destroys my idea.
shareGood point, Kate; but let’s swap genders for a trice. A lady’s crutch underwear is always called “a pair of panties,” or just “panties.” Never seen nor heard the garment called “a panty.” And I don’t WANT it called that. There is something SO EROTIC about the seeming plural. It’s like there’s MORE there. So panties it is.
shareThey used to wear bloomers though 👍
shareAlso a pair of scissors. You can't use a single scissor to... uh, do scissoring. It will always be a pair anyway. So redundant.
sharehow about a set of pants
shareBecause leggings used to be separate. Think of biblical times, imagine them putting leggings on. This evolved to pants. The term stuck.
A lot of English doesn’t make sense but it just has a ring to it.
Scissors are two blades.
So we can call you now The Man with One Ball? 😄
share