Finally, we can all relax:
Few things will spoil the day like wasting time worrying about your "pant".
p.s. I've got a couple of very high end Italian sports jackets in stock, a 40 regular and a 44 regular. Beautiful goods, but not cheap. Interested parties, please contact me via email.
In the garment industry--known as the "rag trade" or "schmatte business" to the cognoscenti--"pant" is frequently used, despite the fact that Wikipedia disapproves:
"Various people in the fashion industry use the word pant instead of pants. This is nonstandard usage. The word "pants" is a plurale tantum, always in plural form—much like the words 'scissors' and 'tongs'."
I just bought DOTR a pair of these pants (he's losing weight so I have to keep finding transitional sizes) for $16.66 at JC Penney. The "worry free" label shows freedom from stains and spills....which, including the cheap price, makes them perfect for Mr. Mustard on My Hands.
So, if I order "pants", I get one to wear, and a spare? If I don't get the spare, do I order one of "those" or one of "that"?
It's like Robert Benchley, when he wanted two...mongeese? mongooses? He ordered a mongoose, then said "while you're at it, send another"
Around here in Central Texas pretty much 8 out of every 10 male garment is St. John's Bay. Who the hell is selling that stuff new? It must be cheap given its ubiquity.
@ NC jack, the plurale tantum mentioned by Lexocologue doesn't need to fall into confusions. The simple method is to order a "pair of pants" or "X pairs of pants". Then refer to one pair (as a single entity) as 'that' pair, and the plurals as 'those/these'.
They are a pair of two pant legs = pants. Anyone who wants a 'pant' should expect trousers for a one legged man.
Trousers (another plurale tantum) is the term I most often use. And In Dutch they are called 'een broek' a singular, so I never encounter the problem there.
Post a Comment