We refer to jeans as "a pair of jeans", but the only thing that there are two of is the legs, it's still only one item of clothing.

Comments

• DarkCloud@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Pants used to be two parts that were joined by lacing them together like shoes at the crotch. So weaving lashed together from the belly button to the groin to the ass and back up to the lower back.

  I believe puffy white undershorts would be worn underneath, and sometimes a codpiece.

  source

  • vk6flab@lemmy.radio ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    That’s a whole image right there … got any evidence of this?

    source

    • CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Image

      medievalbritain.com/type/…/medieval-trousers/

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  women wear a pair of panties but only one bra.

  source

  • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    🤯

    source
• Treczoks@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Trousers are plural because originally they were only a pair of legs (without anything between!) and were tied to a belt.

  source
• tiramichu@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  For some items like glasses it’s very clear why they are pairs; if you can have a reading glass (which is an antiquated way to refer to a handheld magnifying lens, for example) then you can certainly have a pair of reading glasses because it’s the two pieces of glass which are plural.

  For trousers there are no certain answers, but I’d suggest it’s very much with with how we conceptualise their function. For 90% of their height trousers are split and cover the legs, of which we have two, only joining right at the top.

  For shirts you might think it’s the same (two arms right?) but it’s a completely different story because the primary function of a shirt isn’t to cover the arms but to cover the torso. So it’s singular. And gloves of course are distinct, so it’s back to pairs.

  source

  • vk6flab@lemmy.radio ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    What about a brassiere?

    source

    • tiramichu@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Same logic, the bra itself as a whole is a cheat covering.

      But a bra does have a “pair of cups” though!

      source
  • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    A pair of pliers is just one tool.

    And an au pair is just one person, usually a woman, and they aren’t made of a piece of gold, much less two.

    Checkmate, linguists!

    source
• 9point6@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  You can’t wear one leg each from two different pairs of jeans and go about your daily business.

  Well not with that attitude you can’t! I can think of several ways to accomplish this

  source

  • vk6flab@lemmy.radio ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    😂

    source
• artificialfish@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  So what do you call a pair of jeans for a one legged person? You ableist.

  source

  • vk6flab@lemmy.radio ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    You show me a pair of jeans with one leg and I’ll think of a name.

    So far I’m thinking “a leg of jeans” … needs some work 😇

    source
  • Goretantath@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    A jean legging.

    source
• Flemmy@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  A pair of scissors. Is this an English grammar rule when 2 parts are connected to function as one it’s still a pair.?

  source

  • GandalftheBlack@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I’d say it’s less of a grammar rule and more about how things made up of two similar parts can be conceptualised

    source
  • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It’s called a plurale tantum or “plural-only noun”.

    source
  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Is this an English grammar rule

    English grammar and spelling rules were made up on the fly by Dutch workers with a tenable grasp on the language themselves.

    They just operated the first English printing presses and the owner valued quantity over quality. So they just did fucking whatever.

    source

    • vk6flab@lemmy.radio ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Source?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  My two cents, from a french perspectice : we say “a pair of scissors” and “a pair of glasses” but never “a pair of jeans”. For the glasses, it kinda make sense since you can wear only one glass at a time though it’s highly unpractical. For the scissors it make sense if you consider one scissor to be one blade with a handle. I perfectly understand your rant on the jeans point.

  source

  • vk6flab@lemmy.radio ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Apologies if this was perceived as a rant … I’m genuinely interested in discovering why we refer to a pair of jeans.

    As for glasses. In the time of monocles that might have made sense, but I’ve never seen anyone wear two of them.

    source

    • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Im not 100% sure what rant means, I didnt want to imply negativity, sorry for that. This really felt like a legitimate remark to me!

      Yup, for the glasses, it’s definitely an explanation of why we used to call them that way, the justification does not have much sense nowadays.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Goretantath@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Good jeans are two pieces of jean material, stitched together with an orange threading into a pant shape. Pair of jeans is prob from that.

  source
• Brkdncr@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  A pair of jeans for a pair of legs.

  source
• realitista@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I guess each leg qualifies as its own jean?

  source
• Diddlydee@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  A pair of glasses also, as it has two components.

  source
• Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Calling them “a pant” just sounds awkward tho.

  source
• GandalftheBlack@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  They’re made up of two similar parts which form a pair, unlike a jumper

  source

  • vk6flab@lemmy.radio ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    You have jumpers with one sleeve?

    source

    • GandalftheBlack@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      A jumper is a bad example, because it’s not just made up of sleeves.

      A bra is a much better example. But I was never making an argument that all things made up of two parts are referred to as a pair, just my thoughts on the rationale behind cases where we do.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • spittingimage@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Could that be because it’s a French word and they pluralise differently?

      source