Ask anyone who is learning English as a second language what they think the most-maddening oddity of the language is and you are bound to get several different answers (there are, after all, dozens of exceptions to the “rules” of English). But here’s one that repeatedly comes up, even among native speakers of English: Why on Earth do you say “a pair of pants” when the “pants” in question are only one item? (Note: We are using “pants” in the American sense here—as in trousers, not undergarments.) Well, there are a couple of explanations floating around.
According to some, the phrase “pair of pants” harkens back to the days when what constituted pants—or pantaloons, as they were originally known—consisted of two separate items, one for each leg. They were put on one at a time and then secured around the waist. Calling them a pair of pantaloons, or pants, as they were eventually known, made sense when there were two components. The phrasing was retained even after pants were made into one complete garment. However, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence in reference sources to support this theory.
Here is something that can be readily confirmed to explain this linguistic oddity, although it may raise more questions than it answers: the word pants is a plurale tantum. The Oxford English Dictionary defines plurale tantum, which is Latin for “plural only,” as a “noun which is used only in plural form, or which is used only in plural form in a particular sense or senses.” Bifurcated items (things that can be divided into two), such as pants, fall into this category. Think of items that are usually referred to in plural—often preceded by “pair of” or something similar, even when there is only one item: pliers, glasses, scissors, sunglasses, tweezers, etc. So, pants is a type of noun that is used only in its plural form, even when there is only one item being discussed.
According to some, the phrase “pair of pants” harkens back to the days when what constituted pants—or pantaloons, as they were originally known—consisted of two separate items, one for each leg. They were put on one at a time and then secured around the waist.
“Pair,” from the Latin, means two like things. And pants (pantaloons) were originally two like things. You put them on one leg at a time because they actually came in two pieces. You put on one leg, tied it around your waist, then put on the other.
People do say "pair of pants", and if they do, the subject is singular. If they just say "pants" the subject is plural in form, and it doesn't matter whether that's one pair or a hundred pairs.
Two items are always plural. One sock, two socks. One glove, two gloves. Pants or trousers were originally also two separate items that were joined at the waist, and the plural form has stayed, even though the two pieces are now joined to form one garment.
The simplest explanation is that it is a plurale tantum (Latin) which translates to a noun that is used in its plural form. There are certain words in the English language that are like this. However, usually they are preceded by the expression “a pair of …” in this case pants indicating just one pair.
We began calling an individual scissors a pair to emphasize the matched cutting blades. There's precedent for it. Before we called them scissors, we called them shears, and pair was used with shears for about 100 years before scissors arrived on the scene.
Your pants are plural because pants used to consist of two leg sleeves that were joined together by a belt, cinch or tie around the waist. It's short for pantaloons. Pantaloons were a cross between breeches and stockings (large socks).
I'm not sure about other Americans, but “trousers” seem to imply that they are pants belonging to a suit, but I never even use trousers to refer to suit pants. Americans will use the terms “pants”, “slacks”, “britches”, “jeans”, “denims”, “khakis”, “overalls”, and ”work pants”, among a few possible other words.
The word 'pants' comes to us from an Anglicization of the character's name, "Pantaloon." The word comes from the name of a stock figure in the commedia dell'arte, a form of Italian comic theater popular throughout Europe from about the 16th to the mid-18th century.
Two body parts go into a ”pair of shorts”—your legs. A pair of shoes is for two feet; a pair of gloves is for two hands; a pair of earmuffs goes over two ears.
One possibility is that in the late Middle Ages trousers were separate pieces, like long padded hose. One put each one on separately and then stitched them together at your waist to a codpiece or tunic. As a man thus had pairs of trousers, they were pluralized.
The word “scissors” is plural. You would say “The scissors are sharp”, and not “The scissors is sharp.” The singular is scissor, a word which is only used when the noun is used as an adjective, e.g., “the scissor blades” or “the scissor sharpener”.
The plural of fungus is fungi or funguses. Fungi is the more common plural. The noun fungus has a Latin root, which is the derivation of the plural fungi. However, through common usage funguses is also now acceptable.
A “pair" of jeans is a set of denim trousers (2 legs hence the “pair" designation). Buy a pair of jeans you get 2 legs ana only one waist and but and fly.
These are examples from a class of nouns that represent objects that are made from two pieces which are permanently connected. These are generally articulated tools, or clothing worn on the legs. They have no singular form, and when we refer to a single item, we normally say a pair of or less formally some.
Jeans-sizes are measured in inches. They consist of two numbers, e.g. 30 / 34. The first number is the waist circumference. The second number is the inside leg length; which is the length from the crotch, along the leg, to the ground.
Introduction: My name is Velia Krajcik, I am a handsome, clean, lucky, gleaming, magnificent, proud, glorious person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.
We notice you're using an ad blocker
Without advertising income, we can't keep making this site awesome for you.
