I was thinking about —
pants.
ðĪ
Why is it still a pair of pants?
As if we were still in the days when we wore it per-leg basis.
Fascinating how the term did NOT advance like the garment did.
Similar to scissors or glasses. They are now ðĨ as one tool, but are called as they were SEPARATE. Aren't they?
Scissors were literally two (small) blades ⚔️ operated by both hands. Each blade was held on each hand, being positioned as such ⚔️ for snipping things.
Now, same function, but it's advanced — blades are combined with a pin plus the holders for the fingers, conveniently can be operated by one hand — into one tool, this —
But STILL, a pair of scissors.
I'd call it a sniper. Yes, that's right, one "p". It would add the confusion, thank you.
And then we have glasses. A PAIR OF GLASSES.
Similar situation with the scissors and pants.
Leg Tubes
Let's focus on this bit first. Because there will be a pair of underpants.
Before the Dark Ages, the concept of leg-tube was already common. Think of it as a stitched tube garment made of animal skin or fabric or wool — for each leg. Then they are held by a waistband. It makes sense when we call it a pair of pants, like a pair of shoes. Because each one could actually be worn independently.
A shoe for instance, right?
We may freely wear different shoe per foot. Well for reasons, we need to wear them properly as dictated by trend.
BUT! We don't have, or even need, one combined piece of footwear that covers both feet.
Unless we're playing mermaid. Don't forget the lipstick, mermaid needs a lipstick for authenticity.
| ð§♀️ | : |
|
| ð | : |
|
| ð§♀️ | : |
|
| ð | : |
|
| ð | : |
|
| ð§♀️ | : |
|
Loincloth
The concept of loincloth — the cloth to cover the loin or pubic area — is older than leg-tube (pants).
Loincloth is the basis for "underpants".
But indeed, Tarzan didn't wear Gucci V-thong for immersiveness.
Imagine if Tarzan wore a "bit torn and small holes everywhere" pair of white briefs instead of a loincloth, bloke would emanate Homer-Simpson energy.
⬆️ Anyway, did you notice how ambiguous that "pair of white briefs" in a sentence? It somehow sounds like two layers of clothing.
Now, Underpants
How even can we wear half of it? This —
How?
ð§ Let the other part dangles. That's how.
Aside from that technique, it is a one-compound garment, NOT actually separate. But Sir English says —
Also Sir English:
Sir English: $56 / 179$ is pronounced "fifty-six one hundred and seventy-ninths".
Where's the word "part", Sir English?
Sir English: Oh, we don't do that anymore, lad.
That ordinal menace! We need to wait until the last bit of the wording, then?
Isn't it easier and more understandable using "over"?
Fifty-six over one hundred and seventy-nine❓
Sir English: Certainly, if you wish to be called uncivilised.
I suppose it simply follows the pants logic. Since the term "a pair of pants" receives no update, the same phrasing ends up applied to others — bras, pliers, compasses, handcuffs, tights, etc.
ðšðļ has this term pantyhose ⬅️ that is brilliantly logical — a singular noun referring to the single garment.
(Pause. ⏸️)
Anyhow, when we actually look at it, this ðĐē is a one piece of clothing, unlike "a pair of shoes".
ð§ Oh!
Hm... I believe it's somehow modular.
Let's try that in a store setting.
Excuse me, good sir. Hand me over that one underpant, please. I will pay it in half money. I will pay in mor, "r" is half "n".
⬆️ Money ➡️ m-o-n-e-y (5 letters) ➡️ half is 2.5 letters (from left) ➡️ 3rd letter is "n" ➡️ "n" split into two ➡️ "r" ➡️ m-o-r
An underpant (½ ðĐē) is a literal half-posterior cover perhaps.
But wait! The half part is ambiguous! Only covering the front or back is ALSO half.
ð§ Well, hence, a pair of them.
A pair of holes?
ð§ Underpants.
But...
ð§ Yes, it is also to cover that region by design.
Right.
Imagine David Attenborough narated the scene of that one underpant, background symphony starts ðŧ ðž — this sentence below was composed by ChatGPT:
Observe now, the adult human male — donning a singular undergarment, modestly cupping the loins, whilst leaving twin cloth flaps to dangle like indecisive foliage in a summer breeze.
Why does that sound good?
"Indecisive foliage in a summer breeze."
Indecisive foliage, such lovely wording.
"Dangling cloth among his legs", I would say.
"... leaving twin cloth flaps to dangle like dangling cloth among his legs in a summer breeze."
In French, which is the national language of France, the term is updated as a singular item, pantalon.
For instance —
Puis-je emprunter ton pantalon? Non? Alors... Portefeuille, slip, culotte, et caleçon?
That happened a long time ago. Wait a minute. Yes, it did.
Conclusion
No conclusion, it's an amusement. We usually don't conclude anything after riding a rollercoaster.
Or perhaps...
So I guess... English — the mashed-together banquet of a Celtic kitchen commandeered by Romans, overcooked by Angles and Saxons, flambÃĐed by Norsemen, plated in silver by the Normans, and finally garnished with French — simply generalised anything in pair as "a pair of..." without considering whether the pair is actually linked together or separate.
Never mind the "ÃĐ" in "flambÃĐed" in A-Z alphabet — Lingua Amournesia ðŦð· — it's a guess.
ðŽð§ ð ðŦð·
Ooooooh! Britain's got a cru-ush!
K-I-S-S-I-N-G in the A-Z tree!
(A family gathered at one spot in theme park right before they went home.)
| Mum | : |
|
| Dad | : |
|
| Mum | : |
|
| Dad | : |
|
| Child No. 1 | : |
|
| Child No. 2 | : |
|
Pants
Oh by the way, there's not one mention of "trouser" in the article above.
Pant is a shorten of pantaloon.
First from Italian pantalone ➡️ French pantalon ➡️ English pantaloon — pluralised it as pantaloons.
Pantalone (Italian) is the name of the tight-trousered old Venetian merchant from commedia dell'arte (popular throughout Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries). It was actually a stock character. Pantalone was visually iconic, with those tight red leg coverings, over time people began associating his name with the garment itself.
Ey, pantalone, tu! ðĪ — Meaning, something.
Pantaloni! Pantaloni! ðĪ — Meaning, the trousers, emphasised.
In a form of question — Indosso i pantaloni?
Then the term spread to French and English.
The Americans, respectfully, clung to pantaloons longer than needed. Thus, pants.
And still, not an explanation about "trouser".
Trousers
It comes down to the Celts.
The original root is the Irish word triÚs or triubhas, meaning a kind of close-fitting garment for the legs.
The Romans noted this, but since they themselves wore tunics and togas, they mocked trousers as barbarian leg coverings — while they wore skirts and robes. Different trend, so.
In Middle English (after the Norman conquest), we'll find trouse or trews, borrowed from the Gaelic. By the 16th century, the plural stuck, trousers — because they were made of two tubes of cloth, one for each leg.
The singular "trouser" is actually back-formed later on.
Gaelic refers to the Insular Celtic languages of Ireland, Scotland, and Isle of Man.
It includes:
- Irish Gaelic (Gaeilge),
- Scottish Gaelic (GÃ idhlig),
- and Manx (Gaelg).
While Gaul refers to the ancient region covering most of what is now France, Belgium, western Switzerland, and parts of northern Italy. Home to the Continental Celts, the kind who got conquered by Julius Caesar. They spoke Gaulish, a Celtic language that's now extinct. Think Asterix and Obelix.
Blame it on Latin roots and 18th-century scholars who loved subtlety and hated clarity.
Julius never mentioned "GAELIC" — GALLIA. Gaelic is from Old Irish GoÃdelc (from GoÃdel, the mythic ancestor of the Gaels). The Romans never called Irish or Scottish people "Gaelic" — because they didn't even know they existed properly during Juli's time.
In proper Classical Latin, Maximum Caesar Verve (MCV = 1105):
- HIBERNIA = Ireland.
- SCOTTI = raiders from Ireland.
- CALEDONII = fierce folk from northern Britannia, the Scotland.
Gaelic is the modern term for Irish / Scottish Celtic languages.
Gallic ➡️ adjective of Gaul. Meaning "of Gaul" or "French".
Garlic = that plant and the bulb it produces.
So, trousers are literally "the two-leggers", born of Celtic practicality and carried into English speech.
In Britain, "pants" means underwear. Precisely.
Britain
Pants = underpants. It's the clipped version of "underpants".
Bra + pants = knickers set.
America
Pants = trousers.
Bra + pants = gym top with jeans, off to Walmart.
Knickers
In Britain, knickers = short underpants worn by women or girls.
In America, knickers = loose-fitting trousers gathered at the knee or calf. That old-timey baggy golfing trousers with socks.
It was actually flipped to underwear in Britain.
From "knickerbockers" to "knickers".
Originally referred to loose, knee-length breeches worn by men in the 19th century. ➡️ In Victorian / Edwardian Britain, women's bloomers and divided undergarments — originally wide and gathered at the knee — resembled men's knickerbockers. ➡️ People jokingly began calling them "ladies' knickers". ➡️ Shortened as knickers. ➡️ ðš
Knickerbockers
The term is taken from Diedrich Knickerbocker — a fake Dutch name used by an American author Washington Irving.
He wrote a parody history book of New York in 1809. Later illustrations of Irving's stories showed Dutch settlers wearing baggy, knee-length breeches gathered below the knee.
Thus, the legend.
Akin to the word "pant".
From a famous character, Pantalone.
So both stem from characters in entertainment:
- Pants (pant) from Pantalone — a stock character.
- Knickerbockers from Diedrich Knickerbocker — Irving's pen name.
Pantalone didn't say (translated to English) —
(Grudging in the front of a cloth shop.)
Observe, I wear myself! Not a single coin will be spent!
— Though it would be brilliant. In Italian —
Ey! Ey! Tu, io, tu! Io.
(Doing semaphore signals with his arms.)
Or one of the Dutch settlers in Irving's parody mumbling —
Where's the other pair of my knickerbockers? I only have one of them.
Speaking of the Dutch and pants, of course, the Dutch, pragmatic as ever, adopted the garment — from looking at the French, especially at Napoleon — not the grammatical baggage. They wore broeken, not "a pair of broeken". Always singular, broek.
Broek = a pair of trousers.
Broeken = pairs of trousers.
"Broeken" and "broek" are Dutch words, not English.
Well, it was and is one garment. Pair of what, exactly? They saw one item covering two legs, and went —
Ja, ÃĐÃĐn broek. Klaar.
Now Klaas, go get some PDFs. DO YOU HEAR ME, KLAAS? Left! Right! Left! RIGHT! How do we get the cheese, private?!
Klaas: By reading PDFs, MENEER DE KAPITEIN!
Bra
Because there's that "bra" above. Then we shall dissect the term.
Let's go.
Bra stems from brassiere. From Old French braciere, literally "arm protector" (bras = arm). Over time it slid down the body, so to speak, and by around 1900 it was marketed in English as the garment for supporting the bosom. And no more, stopped at the bosom. Hindquarters were too far.
And English doesn't do "a pair of bras". Bloody inconsistent, that. Straight from the heart of every Brit who's ever had to say "a pair of trousers" but not "a pair of bras" with a straight face. Bra can be modular. Some types of it. I proclaim myself as the —
Moving on.
Let's stroll some more.
A-bra-ka-the-bra has nothing to do with the actual bra.
It's —
abracadabra. ðŠ
First recorded by a Roman physician called Serenus Sammonicus, who prescribed the word "abracadabra" written in a triangle and worn as an amulet to ward off fevers and bad spirits — around 2nd century.
The term has Aramaic or Hebraic flavour — since Latin, well, Latin.
Try to shout —
Sine qua non caveat emptor ad infinitum!
— It sounds like... we need to pay... something.
Sine qua non caveat emptor ad infinitum = the essential thing is that buyers beware forever.
In spite of the fact that it was unrelated, he subconsciously predicted that bra somehow would be common.
If it were Mediaeval Latin, it would sound Payus Yourus Taxus.
Bad for film. Glorious for tax collecting after warding off demons.
⬆️
The spirits are off, now pay up. 2 quid. Fill this form, please. For the state.
For the bureaucracy! Quid pro quo. (Tunic flapping.)
Not brarioticracy, sire?
Never!
This "abracadabra" is similar to Coca-Cola. Once remedies, then both ended up on the stage. One as magical incantation for children's shows, the other as the most advertised drink on Earth. Try to wear a Coca-Cola T-shirt and two amulets which read "abrac" and "adabra". Or the other way around, "arbada" and "carba" with an Aloc-Acoc trihs-T.
Talk about pint.
Imagine if Michael Learns to Rock did —
Pant My Love
— instead of —
Paint My Love.
Pant, as a verb. The garment pant, as a verb.
[KÃĨre Wanscher's drum fill.]
⬆️ That's the meaning of "pant" as a verb. Roughly —
to enclose an object with a pair of trousers.
And the response, mostly, would be —
the picture of a thousand soundses.
⬆️ If you listen to the actual song, "sunsets" sounds like "soundses".
Try it.
Search for YouTube website ➡️ then on YouTube, search for Paint.
My Love.
You'll see in the music video, Jascha Richter (the singer) starts as a taxi driver. A yellow Merc taxi. Then everybody plays the instrument precariously. An amusing videography.
The opening stanza:
From my youngest years
Till this moment here
I've never seen
Such a lovely queen
Mate, that's an intense smooth-talk.
But when we swapped the "lovely queen" for —
— we would evoke a pub fight.
ð Note
[Recommended] We still use the first three-line notes and shout the last.
[Optional] Continue serenading the second stanza normally:
From the skies above
To the deepest love
I've never felt
Crazy like this before
[Bonus] Adding "WOOTOOTOO" somewhere in it.
See you next time!