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