Thread 212745233

>a pair of panties
>a pair of pants
>a pair of underwear
>is in fact one single garment rather than a pair
Do other languages do this? I would imagine that would be confusing for someone learning English.

>>212745233 (OP)
same shit in Romanian.
shouldn't it be 'a pair of underwears'?

>>212745233 (OP)
>>212745309
Seems like both of you need a pair of brains

>>212745233 (OP)
>>212745309
do u have a leg or a pair of legs?

>>212745233 (OP)
are two holes a pair of holes?

>>212745233 (OP)
yes this is quite common
pants used to be a physical pair all over Europe up until like 1700s and the "pair" stuck around
back then you would have one cloth tube (hose) for each leg and they would be tied to your belt, kind of like those fancy sexo stockings today
your family jewels would be covered by a flap/codpiece and your coat/tunic overlap

>>212745564
thanks for the informative post

>>212745233 (OP)
see >>212745564
as a result, speaking of undergarments and legwear as if plurale tantum is hypercommon, but some singular use may occur, even if rare (e.g. 'panty')
similar things occur with e.g. 'glasses' — one item, but two lenses originally made of glass (nowadays you can have plastic too)

>>212745309
wear is uncountable
c.f. saying 'three glasses of water'

>>212745233 (OP)
In german you can say
Die Hose singular or die Hosen plural both for one pair of trousers
But if you say Jeans its always plural