Saul Goodman Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago A reminder is from the past. How can it also be from the future? Quote
0 Saul Goodman Posted 15 hours ago Author Posted 15 hours ago 59 minutes ago, kizanski said: Why is "shirt" singular and "pants" plural? Hey, start your own thread. 2 Quote
0 kizanski Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 10 hours ago, Saul Goodman said: Hey, start your own thread. Fair. Quote
0 mathman Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 12 hours ago, kizanski said: Why is "shirt" singular and "pants" plural? One torso and two legs...🤔🤷♂️ 1 Quote
0 kizanski Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 1 minute ago, mathman said: One torso and two legs...🤔🤷♂️ Ok, but two arms? Quote
0 mathman Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 25 minutes ago, kizanski said: Ok, but two arms? But that doesn't make it work.... Quote
0 kizanski Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 26 minutes ago, mathman said: But that doesn't make it work.... Pant legs... > "pants" Shirt sleeves...> "shirt" Make it make sense. Quote
0 velorush Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago Why do I feel like I'm in the fraternity house TV room, 1985, 2:00 A.M. with an unmistakable soupçon of a Columbian brush fire in the air? 2 2 Quote
0 velorush Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago (edited) 2 hours ago, kizanski said: Pant legs... > "pants" Shirt sleeves...> "shirt" Make it make sense. Plural character is determined by proportion: Pants are comprised 79.6% by the two legs (52.3% for 7" shorts). A Shirt is comprised only 17.3% by the two arms (25.4% in the case of a long-sleeved shirt). Thus, the majority of Pants are a pair, the majority of a shirt by a single item. Plural is established for the pants but not for the shirt. Edited 1 hour ago by velorush Quote
0 LucSulla Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 14 hours ago, kizanski said: Why is "shirt" singular and "pants" plural? The brief explanation is that "pants" is short for "pantaloons," which were initially a style of trouser but, in America at least, became sort of a catch all even after pantaloons fell out of style. Trousers were for quite some time a separate kind of leg covering held together at the top by a belt or some buttons. Part of the function of a cod piece was to provide an additional layer between your junk and the world since there was often a gap where the two met. A trouser for each leg was a pair of trousers. This breeches (britches), drawers, pants, slacks, etc. all have this plural form due to this history. Quote
0 Hbom Posted 22 minutes ago Posted 22 minutes ago Do you think if Hamer USA had lasted another 10 years, we might find more interesting things to discuss? Quote
Question
Saul Goodman
A reminder is from the past. How can it also be from the future?
12 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.