I’ve heard people mention the fact that it is odd to call one item a pair of something. More than just pants are included in this. Pliers, scissors…perhaps other things. Anyway, since I’ve heard it mentioned before, I hereby disclaim that this isn’t an idea that originated with me, it is rather an exploration of an idea I’ve heard. And here it goes:
Logically, if we are going to call one pants a pair the indication is that pants have more than one of whatever it is from which the name is derived. Therefore, since pants have only one zipper and more than two belt loops (fancy pants excluded, I refer only to simple, frill-free pants) the only truth we may deduce is that each leg of a pants is a pant. That being apparently true, I wonder why they chose to name them by the pants. Why not a simpler name such as below-midriff-concealing-device? Or a maybe there was a more complicated name which has been shortened to “pants”. Something like a-left-pant-and-a-right-pant-attached-to-a-gluteus-cover-with-built-in-loin-cloth-suspended-by-a-waist-band-with-included-loops-to-aid-in-retention-by-belt.
I think I just seriously digressed.
Have you ever noticed that every name ever applied to pants is plural? Trousers. Britches. Drawers. All plural. So pant legs have also been known as a trouse, a britch and a draw. Its a very bizarre thought to think. I wish I knew who it was that determined that pants are plural. Some bureaucrat I suppose. A stone age predecessor of the modern day, well, whoever decides the plurality of things. Or maybe there is no such person. Maybe it has already all been decided.
I bid you Adieu and A don’t.
Adieu…take the time to consider things not worthy of consideration. Sometimes it’s fun.
A don’t…judge me. I’m not as strange as I sound.