Why is the word "pants" plural?

Question

We wear a shirt, a jacket but a pair of pants.

Why is pants plural?

Well, a "pant" would only be good for one leg... just like a "short", a "trouser"... — , Dec 21 '10 at 09:36
@J. M.: A shirt also has two arms, but we don't call it a "shirts". The question is why "pants", "shorts", "trousers", "knickers" etc. are plural, even though each of them is just an ordinary single piece of clothing. — ShreevatsaR, Dec 21 '10 at 10:11
Perhaps the question should be whether all nouns that end in 's' are always plural in some form. — Joost Schuur, Dec 21 '10 at 11:27
You should listen to Allan Sherman's song "One Hippopotami" :) This youtube link currently works: http://youtube.com/watch?v=umlBrQoG6xk (I deleted and reposted this comment to fix a spelling error.) — Mitch Schwartz, Dec 21 '10 at 17:49
In my English class (I'm German), I learned that it is called "a pair of trousers". Maybe it is the same for those "shoes"? — Uwe Keim, Dec 21 '10 at 15:34
A tailor sees the two parts of a pair of trousers that he sews together. A pair of trousers consists of a left-side part and a right-side part. This kind of expression is typical of English. Italian uses only plural (pantaloni), German uses singular (eine Hose). — rogermue, Nov 05 '15 at 03:39
I suspect there is a connection between countable and uncountable nouns. We generally use a "container" to count a set or a quantity of an uncountable. This works for a glass of beer, just as it does for a pair of pants. Sure, we can say "Give me a beer!", but we are flaunting something when we drop the bottle or glass part. What might be odd would be how exactly were Frank Lentini's pants referred to. BTW, when I use just pants here, I am referring, not to a single trio of pants, rather to his pants in general, which emphasizes the non-countable-ness of pants. I also have a pair of legs. — T.E.D., Jan 17 '19 at 05:28

score 91 · Accepted Answer · answered Dec 21 '10 at 11:34

91

A quick search led me to the excellent site World Wide Words run by Michael Quinion

The site has an entire page on this issue. Here's a brief snippet.

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 (just like cowboys’ chaps). The plural usage persisted out of habit even after the garments had become physically one piece. However, a shirt was a single piece of cloth, so it was always singular.

answered Dec 21 '10 at 11:34

John Satta

5,024

3

Watch movies based in old England and you'll see examples of clothes where the sleeves and pants were separate and tied or fastened on. – Greg Dec 22 '10 at 06:14
2

This explanation is completely dubious since its insufficient to explain why is plural. And and and . And , , . What you observe may be complete coincidence. – Pacerier Jul 29 '17 at 10:08
@Pacerier regarding 'scissors' in particular, the reasons are a bit esoteric. Look into the etymology of scissor. Just as incisors, from the Latin incidere (to cut); scissors also derive from **cisoria* meaning a 'plurality of cutting instruments'. Even though english doesn't have the root word for cutting instrument, it borrowed scissors from French and Latin so it is still, more-or-less, the word cutters. Scissors are plural because they are cutting instruments found in pairs. Saying 'plural of scissors' is like saying 'plural of dogs'. Rather, the implied "pair" is the word to pluralize – That Realtor Programmer Guy Oct 18 '21 at 00:29
2

@Pacerier Additionally, the question was very specifically about "pants", not why we use the plural form for some nouns. – Joachim Oct 18 '21 at 07:16
@Pacerier Are glasses not made of two pieces of glass? Likewise, scissors were originally two knives connected by a spring. – endolith Sep 14 '22 at 02:11

score 4 · Answer 2 · answered Dec 21 '10 at 09:55

4

Apparently in the past they were two tube weakly linked, think to current tights. Hence the plural form.

answered Dec 21 '10 at 09:55

Uberto

1,302

I think there is something about wearing a pair of pants or something like that. – Eldroß Dec 21 '10 at 10:00
Yes but the question is, why a pair of pants is a single object? A pair of shoes is a couple of separate objects. – Uberto Dec 21 '10 at 10:12
1

What, no, a pair of shoes is singular just as a pair of pants is. Look at the pronouns you just used! If you're talking about whether the parts of the whole can be used separately, well, just cut a pair of pants in half and you have yourself a pant and a pant. – SilverbackNet Dec 21 '10 at 22:01
not singular, single object as in one inseparable object... well mine for sure. ;) – Uberto Dec 21 '10 at 22:33
Not that I doubt you exactly but what makes this "apparent" ? My seamstress history is a bit weak. Were they like cowboy chaps? – That Realtor Programmer Guy Oct 17 '21 at 23:48
1

@GaretClaborn This answer was posted in 2010, but it was also posted earlier than the top scored answer, which contains the following quote "The pieces were put on each leg separately and then wrapped and tied or belted at the waist (just like cowboys’ chaps)" Uberto's answer says were two tube weakly linked, think to current tights. I guess that this answer scored fewer upvotes because of its grammatical errors e.g. two tubeS (LEGS), think OF, and also the lack of supporting evidence. – Mari-Lou A Oct 18 '21 at 12:45

score 1 · Answer 3 · answered Oct 01 '13 at 21:12

1

It actually makes perfect sense. Think of these examples. "The clown wore a pair of pants where one pant was red and the other pant green". Also, "The amputee wore his pants with one pant tied up and the other pant covering his good leg". The proper use of the singular and plural is used to make the meaning clear. Or if you look at panties as a whole with two openings or two short upper leg coverings we use the plural, however, if we only refer to the single toursal opening we say "panty waist", especially when referring to a male who is less masculine or who acts cowardly. And by the way "sleeves" is upper body equivalent of pants. "The shirt has short sleeves". "He wore short sleeves". In both these examples we used sleeves as a noun. When we use it as an adjective of a singular noun, we use the singular, ". . . short-sleeve shirt".

answered Oct 01 '13 at 21:12

Bob Benson

29

2

I would normally say one leg, not one pant. – Bradd Szonye Oct 02 '13 at 01:08
1

Yes you can say one pant, one leg or one pant leg when you are referring to pants. – Bob Benson Oct 02 '13 at 05:15
It's the proper use of singular and plural as set by at least 500 years of usage in modern English. – Bob Benson Oct 02 '13 at 23:41
3

It may be proper, but it's not used in practice. About 90% of the occurrences of “one pant” appear in the phrase “one pant leg,” and many of the rest have nothing to do with trousers. So while I wouldn't say this is wrong, it's definitely not typical usage. – Bradd Szonye Oct 03 '13 at 00:34

score -1 · Answer 4 · answered Dec 21 '10 at 11:19

-1

It's referring to the components that make up the whole. A pair of pants consists of two pants. Much like a pair of glasses (usually) has two pieces of glass.

answered Dec 21 '10 at 11:19

Eric

1,934

1

But that doesn't explain why. Other languages manage perfectly well making them singular. – Colin Fine Dec 22 '10 at 17:58
Colin: Swedish uses plural also, for pants (byxor), jeans and glasses (glasögon), the latter translates to glass-eyes. However, a pair of scissors is "sax", which is singular. – Per Alexandersson Sep 03 '14 at 08:36
Have to disagree regarding "other languages". They may manage to make pants singular but then they do not have the subdivided singular, individual pant in the same word. This answer is as correct as any. Pants, in common use, are actually collections of pairs, NOT a plural of pant. ie, it is possible to have 1 pant (half a pair), 55 pants (normal plurality of 1 pant as would be found in a clothing factory) while simultaneously possible to have 55 'pairs of pants' (fully composed of components). Swedish just runs into the same trouble in a different way if translating the previous sentence ... – That Realtor Programmer Guy Oct 17 '21 at 23:57
.. it is really that pant and pants follow standard plurality, only usage of "pair of pants" gets shortened to "pants" for convenience. Find a language where all three pant, pants and pair of pants are expressed with plural/singular semantics and I will be impressed. It may actually be out there but certainly most languages hit the same issue – That Realtor Programmer Guy Oct 17 '21 at 23:59

score -4 · Answer 5 · answered Dec 21 '10 at 10:47

-4

I think it just like the "shoes". You cannot have one "shoe" as well as one "part" of the pants.

answered Dec 21 '10 at 10:47

Ngoc Pham

111

23

Speak for yourself. I have both a left shoe and a right shoe. – Eric Dec 21 '10 at 11:16
Just my thought, that normally, will you wear just one left (or right) shoe when you are going out? – Ngoc Pham Dec 27 '10 at 08:30
2

It depends. If he only needs one step to get the mail, he might only put on the shoe for the foot necessary for the task? – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 16 '12 at 07:29
2

Captain Ahab begs to differ. – Brian Donovan Jun 29 '14 at 15:22
1

What about the phrase "I lost my shoe!" It's not a requirement to lose both at the same time. Not to mention "shoe" means more than an item of clothing. See camera shoe, wood plane shoe, etc. – Malvineous Jan 11 '17 at 08:08
I think you are right that it is "just like shoes" but my reasoning is a bit different (added an answer.) That said, you definitely CAN have a shoe, though it is certainly more frequent to have a pair of shoes. – That Realtor Programmer Guy Oct 18 '21 at 00:18

Why is the word "pants" plural?

5 Answers5

Linked