Sujet : Re: "a Pair of Panties" ?????
De : rh (at) *nospam* rudhar.com (Ruud Harmsen)
Groupes : sci.langDate : 06. Jul 2024, 11:30:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <t57i8jdepogdm62a9v0rigeqfthtm402te@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Fri, 05 Jul 2024 15:25:52 -0700: Snidely <
snidely.too@gmail.com>
scribeva:
On Friday or thereabouts, wugi asked ...
Op 4/07/2024 om 19:09 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-07-04 17:03:35 +0000, wugi said:
Op 1/07/2024 om 7:56 schreef Hibou:
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).
>
[...]
>
Why does English name all these things as pairs, being a single object?
Others like French have a few (lunettes, ciseaux).
But pantalon is singular, though the English word derived from it,
pantaloons,is plural.
>
Not an explanation, but it seems like a demonstration of how English likes to
see things in "double" ;-)
>
Others like Dutch have none of it in plural or "dual".
>
Even twins are just one "tweeling".
>
What is term for each individual twin?
Eén van een tweeling, one of the twins.
Any historic reason?
>
Nah, happened mostly in the quiet times.
>
/dps
-- Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com