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

On 05/07/24 03:03, wugi wrote:

Op 1/07/2024 om 7:56 schreef Hibou:

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).

Old English had a three-way singular/dual/plural classification,
although I don't think that lasted long enough to influence how things
were named in medireview times.

Why does English name all these things as pairs, being a single
object? Others like French have a few (lunettes, ciseaux). Others
like Dutch have none of it in plural or "dual". Any historic reason?

For trousers there's a simple reason. At some stage they existed as
three separate pieces: two leggings, plus the bit at the top that holds
them together. Scissors are similar, because they are two separate arms
that are held together with a screw or something equivalent. Eyeglasses
have a single frame, but then two separate lenses have to be inserted
into the frame.
But of course none of this explains why those objects are singular in
some languages and plural in others.
--
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW