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

On Monday or thereabouts, Janet asked ...

In article <v5tgf1$ukmm$1@dont-email.me>, vpaereru-
unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid says...

 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.

>
  Despite which, the bra is singular.
>
>

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).
 I observe that the kilt is singular - two legs, but only one hole.

>
  Like the skirt, the dress, the petticoat.
>
  It's a mystery why men don't wear a petticoat under those itchy wool kilts.

Wouldn't a petticoat get damp and chilly from the mists on the Highlandd Hills?  I've learned through stories of old lumberman in the Northwest [1] woods that woolen union suits were warm but not itchy once the bracken got you soaked through.

>
  Janet

[1] Either the Old Northwest or the Pacific Northwest, which had a period of overlap of similar logging techniques, although running the river was not as common in the PNW.  Also, I think there were fewer lumber railroads in the Old Northwest because the trees began to play out before logging locomotives became common, but ICBW.
/dps "has woolen socks"
--
Trust, but verify.