Is the phrase, "It's a reminder of what's to come," correct?

[Saul Goodman]

A reminder is from the past. How can it also be from the future?

[mathman]

History repeats itself.

[kizanski]

Why is "shirt" singular and "pants" plural?

[Saul Goodman]

59 minutes ago, kizanski said:

Why is "shirt" singular and "pants" plural?

Hey, start your own thread.

[kizanski]

10 hours ago, Saul Goodman said:

Hey, start your own thread.

Fair.

[mathman]

12 hours ago, kizanski said:

Why is "shirt" singular and "pants" plural?

One torso and two legs...🤔🤷‍♂️

[kizanski]

1 minute ago, mathman said:

One torso and two legs...🤔🤷‍♂️

Ok, but two arms?

[mathman]

25 minutes ago, kizanski said:

Ok, but two arms?

But that doesn't make it work....

[kizanski]

26 minutes ago, mathman said:

But that doesn't make it work....

Pant legs... > "pants"

Shirt sleeves...> "shirt"

Make it make sense.

[velorush]

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? 

[velorush]

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 2 hours ago by velorush

[LucSulla]

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. 

 

[Hbom]

Do you think if Hamer USA had lasted another 10 years, we might find more interesting things to discuss?

[Saul Goodman]

1 hour ago, velorush said:

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.

 

 

 

 

What if they are polyester?

[kizanski]

2 hours ago, velorush said:

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.

What. A. Crock. Of. Shit.   lol

 

2 hours ago, LucSulla said:

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. 

OK. I don’t if any of that is true,but I’ll sign off on it.