Topic: Why not pant instead of pants?
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #43,882
Why not pant instead of pants?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 hours later[^] [v] #579,635
because there are a pair of them
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #579,645
It comes from an ancient Germanic linguistic trait that divided things into singular, dual, and plural. Dual legs = dual noun form.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 4 days later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #581,559
@previous (C)
But we have 2 arms and a shirt is a shirt.
dw joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 26 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #581,582
Because English is for Morae
RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #581,584
@previous (dw)
said the dutch lad who took the time to learn it fluently
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #581,591
@581,559 (A)
This is a good point.
@OP think of gaiters or chaps: the evolution of pants may have come from a tradition of one garmet per leg.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #581,597
@previous (F)
It is a good point but it did take me 4 days to gather enough data to post that post.
↕