Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<op.2p78vhlhg5icyz@myeee900> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english Subject: Re: "a Pair of Panties" ????? Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 12:00:43 +0100 Organization: Dis Lines: 62 Message-ID: <op.2p78vhlhg5icyz@myeee900> References: <v5t8mv$tk1f$1@dont-email.me> <v5tgf1$ukmm$1@dont-email.me> <v5tmc2$vf80$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 13:00:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cfc67baacd1f586cbb2378a78f876169"; logging-data="1113105"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rneN/gbkww7/YX9jHrPgrSb0/EKlausc=" User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.15 (Win32) Cancel-Lock: sha1:sWIALUdHxCmnbK9xSQH+SMSyCU0= Bytes: 2742 On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 08:37:38 +0100, Hibou = <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Le 01/07/2024 =E0 06:56, Hibou a =E9crit : >> Le 01/07/2024 =E0 04:44, HenHanna a =E9crit : >>> >>> A pair of pants, or A pair of trousers >>> >>> ... ok because each Pair kinda looks like [2 pipe= s]. >>> >>> ...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 u= p = >> 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). [...] > > According to the OED, 'pantalon' (Italian-French) goes back to the com= ic = > character Pantaloon, who wore a kind of mediaeval onesie (~1592 onward= s = > in English). With the sense of 'trousers', and usually in the plural, = it = > goes back to ~1661. 'Panties' for menswear goes back to ~1845 ("now = > rare"), for women's underpants to ~1904. > > "As she laid herself out to stride, the other fellows used to get a fi= ne = > exhibition of absolutely naked girl from the waist down (for panties = > were the rare exception, and not the rule then)" - 'Sydney Sportsman',= = > 1904/08/24. > Cwor, pron from 1904! She's now (calc: say 20 at the time) 140. Or maybe not. Time (despite a ridiculous song by the RS) is not on anybodies side. Ask any pensioner. -- = Bah, and indeed, Humbug