A question seeking an answer

[Cole Parker]

This may be silly, but it has me wondering. Can anyone tell me why we say, 'a pair of underwear'?

I mean, it's one item, whether it's a pair, ahem, of boxer shorts or briefs. So, why a pair? A pair of socks, sure. But briefs? Why?

C

[Chris James]

Well here's one answer that really isn't. Why do people post these silly blogs and not really venture to see them through to a logical conclusion? I am no more illuminated now than I was before I read this. But this pair issue seems to have been around for a long time:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/502/why-do-we-say-a-pair-of-pants-when-theres-only-one-of-them

[Lugnutz]

Two leg holes obviously.

[Cole Parker]

You're right, Chris -- he almost answers, then doesn't.

Quite obviously, some things called pairs have two of something, but a lot of things that aren't called pairs also have two of something, like bicycles and double-headers.

Perhaps it's simply a quirk of the language. But it does seem strange to say, "He pulled on a pair of boxers," when he wasn't double-dipping.

C

[Gee Whillickers]

Hmm, language is so fun to look at, examine the history of, and play with.

Right now, I think it's almost more common to say, "After the most satisfying experience of his life, he slid his boxers up while gazing lovingly at..." as it is to say, "he pulled on his pair of boxers..."

Context seems so very important. When taking about laundry, it seems more apropos to talk about how many pairs of boxers were washed. When talking about the above situation, 'pair' seems clumsy.

[colinian]

How about, "He pulled on his boxers," or in my case, "He pulled on his boxer briefs."

Colin

[Chris James]

I believe most of the stories here have the characters pulling down their boxers, and when it occurs we don't bother to say pair of boxers.

[Merkin]

Or pair of thongs.

[DesDownunder]

His boxers wasn't the only thing he pulled off.

[Lugnutz]

Commando.

[Cole Parker]

Or a pair of commandos, but that's just getting kinky!

C

[Lugnutz]

We're way past kinky.

[Lugnutz]

[Bruin Fisher]

In the UK we don't say 'a pair of underwear' because 'underwear' has a slightly different meaning here. It's a category word meaning the clothing you wear next to your skin, under outer clothes. So it includes underpants of whatever variety (sometimes, confusingly, abbreviated to just 'pants'), but it also includes what we call a vest and you, perhaps, call a singlet or undershirt. I'm not sure but perhaps you could even include socks in the category.

Of course American terminology is familiar to us through Hollywood etc and we do know what you mean, but there's scope for confusion. If a doctor told me to remove my clothes but leave my underwear on, I'd keep my vest on as well as my underpants. Like most of us I only wear a vest in cold weather, by the way.

Regarding the 'pair' question, the same query would apply to trousers - your pants. They're a pair, too, and they are of course leg-coverings that happen to be joined at the top (as opposed to hose, stockings, which are leg-coverings not joined at the top) and as leg-coverings, they come in twos and are referred to as a pair. Underpants, trunks, boxers, briefs, hipsters, knickers, scanties, all are merely abbreviated versions of the leg-covering and so all are pairs. Hope that clears it up!

[The Pecman]

I saw this damn commercial, and I thought "boots & pants? boots and pants? What the hell does that mean?"

Also, tell that pig to put on a pair of swim trunks. (Not one trunk, the whole pair.)

[Cole Parker]

In the UK we don't say 'a pair of underwear' because 'underwear' has a slightly different meaning here. It's a category word meaning the clothing you wear next to your skin, under outer clothes. So it includes underpants of whatever variety (sometimes, confusingly, abbreviated to just 'pants'), but it also includes what we call a vest and you, perhaps, call a singlet or undershirt. I'm not sure but perhaps you could even include socks in the category.

Of course American terminology is familiar to us through Hollywood etc and we do know what you mean, but there's scope for confusion. If a doctor told me to remove my clothes but leave my underwear on, I'd keep my vest on as well as my underpants. Like most of us I only wear a vest in cold weather, by the way.

Regarding the 'pair' question, the same query would apply to trousers - your pants. They're a pair, too, and they are of course leg-coverings that happen to be joined at the top (as opposed to hose, stockings, which are leg-coverings not joined at the top) and as leg-coverings, they come in twos and are referred to as a pair. Underpants, trunks, boxers, briefs, hipsters, knickers, scanties, all are merely abbreviated versions of the leg-covering and so all are pairs. Hope that clears it up!

No, but then, I don't expect there is a good answer.

I would like to take this opportunity to straighten you out, however. A vest is a garment worn over a shirt and under a sports coat or suit coat. It is never worn next to the skin unless you're a hippie or pretending to be a motorcycle tough-guy. You're thinking vest when the right word is undershirt, as you admitted, or t-shirt or wifebeater. The word vest, used properly, is what you gents in the UK call a waistcoat. But then, you may have known that.

One last thing. We never, in any connotation, use the word singlet. It isn't in our vocabulary.

I provide this as a public service. No charge. On the house.

C

[The Pecman]

One last thing. We never, in any connotation, use the word singlet. It isn't in our vocabulary.

Nope, they do use the term "singlet" for Olympic-style wrestling outfits, used in American schools all the way down to Middle School:

[Cole Parker]

Well, just because it's in YOUR vocabulary doesn't mean it's in mine. And seeing those poor kids displayed like that, you can see WHY it isn't in mine.

C

[DesDownunder]

I'll contact Aussie Immigration and let them know that definitions for vests, singlets and underdaks should be added to the training centre's induction sessions for American and English tourists.

[The Pecman]

Well, just because it's in YOUR vocabulary doesn't mean it's in mine. And seeing those poor kids displayed like that, you can see WHY it isn't in mine.

It is really used widely in Olympic-style wrestling, but I've never heard it used in America outside of that.

Don't ask me if they say "a pair of singlets." I think it's just "a singlet."

[DesDownunder]

Yes, it's just "a singlet," here in Australia.

[Chris James]

What I want to know is how many of you were crazy enough to watch the whole thing????? Pants indeed, Luggie...in a pig's eye.

[Cole Parker]

--Posted Today, 12:41 AM

I'll contact Aussie Immigration and let them know that definitions for vests, singlets and underdaks should be added to the training centre's induction sessions for American and English tourists.

Thank you, Des.

C

[Bruin Fisher]

I would like to take this opportunity to straighten you out, however.

You will find that such so-called therapies are condemned by the American Psychiatric Association and all other reputable authorities. Anyway, I don't want to be straightened out - I like being bent...

However I will concede the vest. Although we prefer to call it a waistcoat, we should know it can also be called a vest, since we talk about our vest pocket and the watch that lives in it.

[ChrisR]

But if a young man puts on his vest to become vested, why does it mean the opposite when he gets pantsed?