0
Guest Posted 21 years ago
Grammar

Why are pants, trousers, jeans, shorts...etc. treated as plural?

0 In Japanese language those clothing items are treated as singular nouns. Glasses, socks, shoes, gloves are easier to understand as plurals, but I would like to find some plausible explanation for the plural recognition of those clothing items above mentioned. Are they plural because of historical reason? When I saw chaps for cowboys for the first time, I was tempted to connect them to this question of mine. I have long wanted to find an answer but I have been lazy. Would anyone please help me? K.I. 0-
  

Top answer

0 Just a guess - all these items of clothing have two legs. That's why the plural. 0-

— Miche

  • 0 Just a guess - all these items of clothing have two legs.
  • That's why the plural.
  • 0-
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

24 Answers
0
0 Just a guess - all these items of clothing have two legs. That's why the plural. 0-
0
0
0 I think that is the usual explanation. 02br
02br
00However, jackets have two arms? 0-
0
0
0 Yes, but it doesn't look too weird when you only use one sleeve... Think how it would look with only one trousers leg "occupied"... 0-
0
0
0 01blockquote
00According to several costume historians who have helped me with this reply, the answer to all this conventional plurality is very simple. Before the days of modern tailoring, such garments, whether underwear or outerwear, were indeed made in two parts, one for each leg. The pieces were put on each leg separately and then wrapped and tied or belted at the waist
0
0
0 Hello Khoff 02br
02br
00Thank you for the great infomation. It's very helpful to my understanding why we should always use plurals for things like trousers. 02br
02br
00paco 0-
0
0
0 Thank you very much for your convincing explanation. Thanks to you I will be able to teach my students better regarding this matter. 02br
02br
00FYI 02br
00The following is an excerpt from what I found via Google. 02br
02br
00It was from the site called "The Phrase Finder" and entitled "Undies" and posted by Lewis on January 12, 2004.
0
0
0 01blockquote
00So, partial answer - the clothing that covers the legs, bottom and genitals - was originally not in one piece and a pair of trousers was thus two leg-pieces joined together - with or without crotch cover. 12blockquote
12br
02br
00Depending on the climate, perhaps? 0-
0
0
I thought I was the only person who ever thought to ask why "jeans" are always plural. At least I am not the only weird one out there.
0
0
I stole the answer below from http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pai1.htm

"According to costume historians, before the days of modern tailoring, such garments, whether underwear or outerwear, were indeed made in two parts, one for each leg
0
0
but shirts have 2 arm holes but you don't call it a pair of shirts...
0

Related Questions