August 14, 2001

pants, pair of

Can the mavens tell me why trousers, pants, shorts and underwear are always considered pairs, while shirts and jackets are single items? The argument that trousers have two legs fails if you consider that shirts have two sleeves. The argument further weakens with underwear, which may not have legs at all.

From the many similar questions we've received, I assume this is one of the more frustrating language oddities. People want to know why we don't say "a pair of bras." Also, it's strange that the phrase pair of pants is the only way to refer to one such item, since the word pants is always plural. This explains why the singular pant is sometimes used, especially by the clothing and fashion industry. Though jarring to some people, singular pant has been in use since the late 19th century.

Pants is an Americanism first recorded in 1840, and was considered a vulgar term for at least a century afterwards. It is a shortened form of pantaloons, from Pantalone, a stock character in Italian commedia dell'arte, who wore a combination of loose breeches and stockings. The term pantaloons is first recorded in English about 1600, and was applied at different periods to leg garments of different styles.

So why do we say "pair of pants/shorts/trousers/slacks?" Until the late 17th century, leg garments were made in two parts, one sleeve of fabric for each leg, so calling them a "pair" made perfect sense. The two pieces of woven cloth (or animal hides) were tied to a belt to hold them up. Supposedly the resulting indecent exposure made the "codpiece" a useful invention. From the Columbia Encyclopedia I learned the history of pants: After the Middle Ages, a loose trouser, bound at the ankle, was worn. Then the lower legs became more fitted, and these "breeches" were shortened to the knee and worn with fitted cloths called "hose." Breeches grew shorter and hose became longer; by about 1450 the hose reached the hips and were attached by points (laces) to the doublet. Later the breeches and hose formed one garment, like tights. As the upper part of the hose became more puffed out, a separation occurred: the upper part was called "trunk hose," and the leg coverings were called "stockings." Trousers grew longer and stockings shorter. In the early 17th century, men wore pantaloon breeches, but a tight-fitting trouser was introduced in the late 18th century, eventually superseding knee breeches, or knickers. The so called "trunk hose" evolved into what we now call "pants," and the so called "stockings" are what we now also call "hose."

Carol