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 Friday at 03:27 PM 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.

[velorush]

1 hour ago, kizanski said:

What. A. Crock. Of. Shit.   lol

Exactly. And exactly as it would have been presented in in the fraternity house TV room, 1985, 2:00 A.M. with an unmistakable soupçon of a Columbian brush fire in the air.

Absolute and completely made up but presented with such complete and unassailable confidence that no one would ever question the veracity. Absent Internet, one could typically get away with it. 🤣

[specialk]

Like a car wreck, I keep coming back to stare…

[JGale]

whats an unmistakeable soupcan?

[LucSulla]

On 7/23/2026 at 5:05 PM, Saul Goodman said:

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

I set up reminders for meetings and appointments all the time, which, when received, would be a reminder from the past about what's to come.

One of my favorite abstruse English oddities has to do with why the plural "were" in a phrase like, "As it were, he's still not coming," is grammatically correct, as it were. 

Edited 19 hours ago by LucSulla

[scottcald]

Ladies and gentlemen, a guitar forum discussing the vagaries of the English language. 

On 7/24/2026 at 11:26 AM, 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. 

 

What sort of nonsense is bringing etymology into a discussion? 🤣

On 7/24/2026 at 12:22 PM, Hbom said:

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

A few, but this one would still exist. 

[kizanski]

8 hours ago, scottcald said:

What sort of nonsense is bringing etymology into a discussion? 🤣

Bugs have nothing to do with it.