Re: "a Pair of Panties" ?????

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 08:37:38 +0100, Hibou  <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

Le 01/07/2024 à 06:56, Hibou a écrit :

Le 01/07/2024 à 04:44, HenHanna a écrit :

>
A pair of pants,    or    A pair of trousers
>
                  ... ok because each Pair kinda looks like  [2 pipes].
>
    ...but...
              "a Pair of Panties" ?????

 There appears to be a class of things that exist only in the plural -  a pair of tweezers, scissors, pliers, sunglasses... trousers,  underpants, knickers, tights... - things that bifurcate or are made up  of two bits. I suppose the briefer garments inherited the plural from  longer ones (though a few minutes' searching yields no support for  this; briefs were apparently in use in Ancient Egypt). [...]

>
According to the OED, 'pantalon' (Italian-French) goes back to the comic  character Pantaloon, who wore a kind of mediaeval onesie (~1592 onwards  in English). With the sense of 'trousers', and usually in the plural, it  goes back to ~1661. 'Panties' for menswear goes back to ~1845 ("now  rare"), for women's underpants to ~1904.
>
"As she laid herself out to stride, the other fellows used to get a fine  exhibition of absolutely naked girl from the waist down (for panties  were the rare exception, and not the rule then)" - 'Sydney Sportsman',  1904/08/24.
>

Cwor, pron from 1904!
She's now (calc: say 20 at the time) 140. Or maybe not.
Time (despite a ridiculous song by the RS) is not on anybodies side.
Ask any pensioner.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug