Scissor or Scissors
sandee98
shears....
I always thought it was scissors...but I hear a lot of people say scissor.
Would you please pass me the scissors? or Would you please pass me the
scissor?
thanks....You can e-mail the response to me......
Sandee
sand...@dplus.net
Mark Barton
<sand...@dplus.net> wrote:
>Would someone once and for all please tell me what the correct usage is of
>shears....
>I always thought it was scissors...but I hear a lot of people say scissor.
>
>Would you please pass me the scissors? or Would you please pass me the
>scissor?
The correct usage is "scissors". If you want to be specific about the
exact number you should say "one pair of scissors"/"two pairs of scissors"
etc. "Scissor" is never used except as a joke. Even if you take a pair of
scissors apart you don't have "two scissors" but "the two blades of a pair
of scissors".
Other words that follow the same pattern include "pants", "pliers" and
"(eye)glasses". You can't speak of a single "pant", "plier" or "glass",
only of pairs of them.
Not all things that come in pairs are permanently plural. You can have a
single "shoe", "cufflink" or "earring".
Cheers,
Mark B.
--
Please remove the spam block (both bits) from my address to reply.
If you receive this by email, note that it was posted as well. Please
make your preferences about CCing known. My default is to CC when
answering a serious query or if I severely criticise a post.
Podibanda Kuruppu
>
> In article <01bdba52$8192ad40$46b974d1@sandee98>, "sandee98"
> <sand...@dplus.net> wrote:
>
> >Would someone once and for all please tell me what the correct usage is of
> >shears....
> >I always thought it was scissors...but I hear a lot of people say scissor.
> >
> >Would you please pass me the scissors? or Would you please pass me the
> >scissor?
>
> The correct usage is "scissors". If you want to be specific about the
> exact number you should say "one pair of scissors"/"two pairs of scissors"
> etc. "Scissor" is never used except as a joke. Even if you take a pair of
Petr Korda, a well-known Czech professional tennis player, celebrates his
victories with a scissor-kick[*]. He jumps up in the air and crosses his
legs like the blades of a pair of scissors.
ObAUE: Is the order of adjectives in "a well-known Czech professional
tennis player" correct?
[*] What does one call this? A Mnemonic? Is there a word to describe this
action much like onomatopoeia?
Skitt
Podibanda Kuruppu wrote in message ...
>Petr Korda, a well-known Czech professional tennis player, celebrates his
>victories with a scissor-kick[*]. He jumps up in the air and crosses his
>legs like the blades of a pair of scissors.
That is shown in MWCD10 as "scissors kick."
>
>ObAUE: Is the order of adjectives in "a well-known Czech professional
>tennis player" correct?
Looks good to me.
>[*] What does one call this? A Mnemonic? Is there a word to describe this
> action much like onomatopoeia?
Sorry, I don't know.
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
If you are posting a reply, please, do not email it.
It just confuses me.
SLHinton17
On Tue, Jul 28, 1998, mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp (Mark Barton) wrote:
>>In article <01bdba52$8192ad40$46b974d1@sandee98>, "sandee98"
>>sand...@dplus.net> wrote:
>>Would someone once and for all please tell me what the correct usage is >>of
shears.... I always thought it was scissors...but I hear a lot of people say
>>scissor.
>The correct usage is "scissors". If you want to be specific about the
>exact number you should say "one pair of scissors"/"two pairs of scissors"
>etc. "Scissor" is never used except as a joke.
**************************
FWIT, "scissor" is used as an intransitive verb.
Sam Hinton
La Jolla, CA
Podibanda Kuruppu
>
> Podibanda Kuruppu wrote in message ...
>
> >Petr Korda, a well-known Czech professional tennis player, celebrates his
> >victories with a scissor-kick[*]. He jumps up in the air and crosses his
> >legs like the blades of a pair of scissors.
>
>
> That is shown in MWCD10 as "scissors kick."
I stand corrected. Thanks.
P&DSchultz
>
> In article <01bdba52$8192ad40$46b974d1@sandee98>, "sandee98"
> <sand...@dplus.net> wrote:
>
> >Would someone once and for all please tell me what the correct usage is of
> >shears....
> >I always thought it was scissors...but I hear a lot of people say scissor.
> >
> >scissor?
>
> exact number you should say "one pair of scissors"/"two pairs of scissors"
> etc. "Scissor" is never used except as a joke.
I notice that many people use "scissors" as a singular noun. For
instance, they say, "Do you have a scissors I can use?" My dictionary
(AHD3) notes that the noun (i.e., as the name for the implement)
takes a singular or plural verb.
//P. Schultz
Eric The Read
However, I, and all my friends (both in Europe and the US) have always
referred to it as a "scissor kick".
-=Eric
Skitt
Eric The Read wrote in message ...
I see that you are very selective in picking your friends. <g>
Charles A. Lee
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:07:27 GMT, "sandee98" <sand...@dplus.net>
wrote:
>. . .
>Would you please pass me the scissors? or Would you please pass me the
>scissor?
>. . .
Rather than reciting the whole thing, I'll just point you to - -
http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?method=exact&isindex=scissors&db=*
Cheers.
Charles A. Lee
http://www.concentric.net/~azcal
================================
= "Nobody goes there anymore; =
= it's too crowded. =
= - Yogi Berra =
================================
David McMurray
[discussion of subject header]
> Other words that follow the same pattern include "pants", "pliers" and
> "(eye)glasses". You can't speak of a single "pant", "plier" or "glass",
> only of pairs of them.
You certainly can speak of a single eyeglass, although some would call
it a monocle. You don't often hear about a binocular, however.
>
> Not all things that come in pairs are permanently plural. You can have a
> single "shoe", "cufflink" or "earring".
Or sock - I have dozens, all unmatched.
--
David
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
<podiN...@seegiri.ewdnospam.3com.com> writes:
>ObAUE: Is the order of adjectives in "a well-known Czech professional
>tennis player" correct?
I don't see any acceptable alternative order, though I have not sufficient
unoccupied brain cells at the moment to think why.
Gary Williams
Golgo13
> Mark Barton <mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> [discussion of subject header]
>
> > Other words that follow the same pattern include "pants", "pliers" and
> > "(eye)glasses". You can't speak of a single "pant", "plier" or "glass",
> > only of pairs of them.
Wasn't there a brief emergence of the singular "pant" circa 1975?
Advertising for Gap stores commonly trumpeted the savings to be had on
their "Denim Pant," or "Our famous Corduroy Pant," and Macy's was doing
this also. To be sure, advertising speech takes liberties few other
media dare, but that doesn't stop it from having considerable impact on
language, either.
Believe it or not, "eyeglass," according to W20C(ua) is acceptable for
"monocle" and until recently was -preferred- to the plural form for what
it lists as "also - _spectacles_."
> You certainly can speak of a single eyeglass, although some would call
> it a monocle. You don't often hear about a binocular, however.
That's because of the word "monocular," one of which I've got right
here. I remember getting one for sports events and concerts because it
fits in the pocket as opposed to dangling (oft dangerously) around the
neck as do their heavier doubled cousins.
> > Not all things that come in pairs are permanently plural. You can have a
> > single "shoe", "cufflink" or "earring".
> Or sock - I have dozens, all unmatched.
Now this is apropos (except for 'cuff link' which isn't one word). Most
"a pair of ___" constructions *can* be made singular, as both have
noted. Why are scissors different? Perhaps its because the "s" is part
of the noun and can be used without "a pair of" quite handily.
"Toss me those scissors, would you? Ow!"
From the Latin "caedo" meaning "fall, cut, kill," e.g., "excise,"
"circumcise," and so "scissors." As with "pliers," "tongs" and
"calipers," I think the fact that two like elements are joined does not
obscure the sense of "two elements employed to __." "Scissor" being the
operative verb in this context.
Cheers,
DLS
--
D. Sosnoski
gol...@mindspring.com
"A war designed to wipe out pockets of vernacular resistance ..." -WFB
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>I notice that many people use "scissors" as a singular noun. For
>instance, they say, "Do you have a scissors I can use?" My dictionary
>(AHD3) notes that the noun (i.e., as the name for the implement)
>takes a singular or plural verb.
Do these people also say, "That is a nice pants you are wearing"?
Gary Williams
Skitt
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote in message
<6pn91a$75h$1...@news.cudenver.edu>...
Non sequitur. "Pants" requires plural verb, "pant" -- singular.
"Scissors" can take either singular or plural verb.
MWCD10:
Main Entry: scisæ–°ors
Pronunciation: 'si-z&rz
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Date: 14th century
Main Entry: 3pant
Function: noun
Etymology: short for pantaloons
Date: 1840
1 : an outer garment covering each leg separately and usually extending from
the waist to the ankle -- usually used in plural
2 plural, chiefly British : men's underpants
3 plural : PANTIE
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
CAUTION: My opinion may vary.
28.3854 -80.7012
David McMurray
[a pant, being one of a pair]
> Believe it or not, "eyeglass," according to W20C(ua) is acceptable for
> "monocle" and until recently was -preferred- to the plural form for what
> it lists as "also - _spectacles_."
It would seem that I believe it because you have correctly quoted me as
saying:
> > You certainly can speak of a single eyeglass, although some would call
> > it a monocle.
> > You don't often hear about a binocular, however.
> That's because of the word "monocular," [...]
Then we are both wrong, as I thought it was because of the "bin". But I
see in the SOED3 that the device was first known as a "binocle" and
later a "binocular" - short for "binocular glass". "Binoculars" must
therefore be intended for people with four eyes, while those with eight
require a pair of binoculars.
[...]
--
David
Armond Perretta
>Tabbie wrote: .... I have a friend that calls her bra
When I was in the US Army and on bivouac for an extended period, I remember
doing something just like this. After 2 or 3 weeks in the boonies, some of
my clothing articles actually responded.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat (remove "BOAT")
Mark Barton
(David McMurray) wrote:
>Mark Barton <mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>[discussion of subject header]
>
>> Other words that follow the same pattern include "pants", "pliers" and
>> "(eye)glasses". You can't speak of a single "pant", "plier" or "glass",
>> only of pairs of them.
>You certainly can speak of a single eyeglass, although some would call
>it a monocle. You don't often hear about a binocular, however.
Sorry, I've been unclear. You can't have a single glass in the sense of
half a pair of glasses.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>
>Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote in message
><6pn91a$75h$1...@news.cudenver.edu>...
>>In article <35BE56...@erols.com>, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
>>
>>>I notice that many people use "scissors" as a singular noun. For
>>>instance, they say, "Do you have a scissors I can use?" My dictionary
>>>(AHD3) notes that the noun (i.e., as the name for the implement)
>>>takes a singular or plural verb.
>>
>>Do these people also say, "That is a nice pants you are wearing"?
>
>
>Non sequitur. "Pants" requires plural verb, "pant" -- singular.
>"Scissors" can take either singular or plural verb.
I was reacting to the indefinite article, not to the verb.
Is AHD3 saying that one may say, "These scissors is dull"?
Gary Williams
Skitt
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote in message
I don't know what AHD3 is saying but MWCD10 would support either
"These scissors are dull" or "this scissors is dull".
Armond Perretta
>David McMurray wrote: ... You don't often hear about a binocular, however.
Maybe an arcane usage, but aboard ship one often hears a set of binoculars
referred to as "the glass," as in: "Please hand me the glass." The phrase
is generally well understood.
Serenleono
>Maybe an arcane usage, but aboard ship one often hears a set of binoculars
>referred to as "the glass," as in: "Please hand me the glass." The phrase
>is generally well understood.
They were always called glasses, plural, in the R.N., but the singular
is definitely a carry-over from the wooden ship days when "the glass"
or "a glass" was a portable telescope (originally called a long-glass
or spy-glass). However, the same term also was applied to the
barometer (weatherglass) or half-hour glass.
Seren
P&DSchultz
> <...>
> Wasn't there a brief emergence of the singular "pant" circa 1975?
> Advertising for Gap stores commonly trumpeted the savings to be had on
> their "Denim Pant," or "Our famous Corduroy Pant," and Macy's was doing
> this also. To be sure, advertising speech takes liberties few other
> media dare, but that doesn't stop it from having considerable impact on
I heard it this very morning in a radio ad for disposable
incontinence pants. When you buy one pant, you get a coupon
for a free additional pant.
//P. Schultz
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>I don't know what AHD3 is saying but MWCD10 would support either
>"These scissors are dull" or "this scissors is dull".
And that sounds to me very much like saying "this pants is dirty" or "this
pliers is too small".
Gary Williams
P&DSchultz
>
> In article <6pndfi$au...@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>, "Skitt" <al...@myself.com> writes:
> >
> >Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote in message
> ><6pn91a$75h$1...@news.cudenver.edu>...
> >>In article <35BE56...@erols.com>, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>I notice that many people use "scissors" as a singular noun. For
> >>>instance, they say, "Do you have a scissors I can use?" My dictionary
> >>>(AHD3) notes that the noun (i.e., as the name for the implement)
> >>>takes a singular or plural verb.
> >>
> >>Do these people also say, "That is a nice pants you are wearing"?
> >
> >
> >Non sequitur. "Pants" requires plural verb, "pant" -- singular.
> >"Scissors" can take either singular or plural verb.
>
> I was reacting to the indefinite article, not to the verb.
>
> Is AHD3 saying that one may say, "These scissors is dull"?
The AHD3 doesn't mention articles, just possible verbs. That's
partially why I posted the usage "a scissors" which I have heard --
often from teachers, it seems to me. The next time I hear it, I will
try to discreetly pump the utterer as to whether he or she would say
"That is a nice pants you are wearing." If you have any ideas on how I
might bring this into a conversation in an unobtrusive and nonchalant
way, please let me know.
//P. Schultz
Tabbie
considers her bra to be a pair of bras. English is not her first language.
--
Tabbie »^..^«
Mark Barton wrote in message ...
>In article <01bdba52$8192ad40$46b974d1@sandee98>, "sandee98"
><sand...@dplus.net> wrote:
>
>>Would someone once and for all please tell me what the correct usage is of
>>shears....
>>I always thought it was scissors...but I hear a lot of people say scissor.
>>
>>Would you please pass me the scissors? or Would you please pass me the
>>scissor?
>
>The correct usage is "scissors". If you want to be specific about the
>exact number you should say "one pair of scissors"/"two pairs of scissors"
>etc. "Scissor" is never used except as a joke. Even if you take a pair of
>scissors apart you don't have "two scissors" but "the two blades of a pair
>of scissors".
>
>Other words that follow the same pattern include "pants", "pliers" and
>"(eye)glasses". You can't speak of a single "pant", "plier" or "glass",
>only of pairs of them.
>
>Not all things that come in pairs are permanently plural. You can have a
>single "shoe", "cufflink" or "earring".
>
Skitt
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote in message
I guess you forgot what you snipped from my previous post.
While something might appear to you to suggest something else, in this case
you are assuming things that are not there.
I quote from my previous post:
"Pants" requires plural verb, "pant" -- singular.
"Scissors" can take either singular or plural verb.
I will now add that the article, of course, has to match, natch!
Repeat of forgotten post:
Main Entry: 3pant
Function: noun
Etymology: short for pantaloons
Date: 1840
1 : an outer garment covering each leg separately and usually extending from
the waist to the ankle -- usually used in plural
2 plural, chiefly British : men's underpants
3 plural : PANTIE
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>The AHD3 doesn't mention articles, just possible verbs. That's
>partially why I posted the usage "a scissors" which I have heard --
>often from teachers, it seems to me. The next time I hear it, I will
>try to discreetly pump the utterer as to whether he or she would say
>"That is a nice pants you are wearing." If you have any ideas on how I
>might bring this into a conversation in an unobtrusive and nonchalant
>way, please let me know.
Well, let's see. Contrive that the scissors be sewing scissors. Ask the
speaker what kinds of clothing se cuts out with that tool. Hope that the sewer
does not limit semself to dresses and jackets.
Look, I know it will make you seem an idiot; but you must be willing to
sacrifice for the advancement of science.
Gary Williams
Larry Phillips
> Well, let's see. Contrive that the scissors be sewing scissors. Ask
> the speaker what kinds of clothing se cuts out with that tool. Hope
> that the sewer does not limit semself to dresses and jackets.
Why would se put perfectly good clothing(s) down ser sewer?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Sixty billion gigabits can do much. It even does windows.
-- Fred Pohl, Beyond the Blue Event Horizon, 1980
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
writes:
>Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
>
>>Hope that the sewer does not limit semself to dresses and jackets.
>
>Why would se put perfectly good clothing(s) down ser sewer?
I wondered if someone would notice that.
But is there another word for "one who sews"? I think "tailor" and
"dressmaker" are too specialized; and "seamstress" would have suggested that
only those of the female persuasion may sew.
Gary Williams
Christine A Allard
all this talk has gotten me thinking.
what about "pant leg"?
as in, my sock is balled up in the right pant leg.
should it read pants leg?
relating to scissors, would one make the blades singular?
as in, Ew, there is sticky goo all over this scissor blade!
or should i merely stick to
Ew, there is sticky goo all over this blade of this pair of scissors!
Skitt
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote in message
<6psod5$2js$1...@news.cudenver.edu>...
Hmm, how about a new one: "seamster"?
K1912
>In article <35C14B3A...@home.com>, Larry Phillips <lar...@home.com>
>writes:
>>Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
>>
>
>>>Hope that the sewer does not limit semself to dresses and jackets.
>>
>>Why would se put perfectly good clothing(s) down ser sewer?
>
>I wondered if someone would notice that.
>
>But is there another word for "one who sews"? I think "tailor" and
>"dressmaker" are too specialized; and "seamstress" would have suggested that
>only those of the female persuasion may sew.
>
>
tailors make a man"?
gk
K1912
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
<ca...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>what about "pant leg"?
>as in, my sock is balled up in the right pant leg.
>should it read pants leg?
>
>relating to scissors, would one make the blades singular?
>as in, Ew, there is sticky goo all over this scissor blade!
>
>or should i merely stick to
>Ew, there is sticky goo all over this blade of this pair of scissors!
That would seem to be the safest option.
Someone has already traced scissor back to a Latin root having to do with
cutting. So I suppose that it is logical that a single blade is a scissor, and
the fact that the blades are always used two to a set is what gives us a pair
of scissors.
Similarly, eyeglasses are always built two lenses to the set, so we have a pair
of glasses.
Is there some root for "pant" that means "leg covering"; and is it the fact
that these leg coverings always come joined from crotch to waist what gives us
a pair of pants?
Gary Williams
Podibanda Kuruppu
> hmmmm....
>
> all this talk has gotten me thinking.
>
> what about "pant leg"?
> as in, my sock is balled up in the right pant leg.
> should it read pants leg?
>
> relating to scissors, would one make the blades singular?
> as in, Ew, there is sticky goo all over this scissor blade!
>
> or should i merely stick to
> Ew, there is sticky goo all over this blade of this pair of scissors!
I don't know whether what I say count at all, but I would use "right
pant leg" and "scissor blade". These do sound very natural to my
ear.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> hmmmm....
>
> all this talk has gotten me thinking.
>
> what about "pant leg"?
> as in, my sock is balled up in the right pant leg.
> should it read pants leg?
>
> relating to scissors, would one make the blades singular?
> as in, Ew, there is sticky goo all over this scissor blade!
>
> or should i merely stick to
> Ew, there is sticky goo all over this blade of this pair of scissors!
I think "scissor blade" is acceptable. Pant leg, scissor blade, eyeglass
case, and so forth. As we observed in another thread, attributive nouns
(almost) never appear in a regular plural form. This apparently applies
even when the noun in question does not appear in the singular in any other
context.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
David McMurray
> Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote in message
[...]
> >But is there another word for "one who sews"? I think "tailor" and
> >"dressmaker" are too specialized; and "seamstress" would have suggested that
> >only those of the female persuasion may sew.
>
>
> Hmm, how about a new one: "seamster"?
New? You don't mean that your beloved MWCD10 has let you down again!
It's marked as Old English in the SOED3 which means that the earliest
recorded use of the word is sometime before the middle of the twelfth
century. "Seamstress" is derived from it.
--
David
Tom Thomson
>Other words that follow the same pattern include "pants", "pliers" and
>"(eye)glasses". You can't speak of a single "pant", "plier" or "glass",
>only of pairs of them.
>
>Not all things that come in pairs are permanently plural. You can have a
>single "shoe", "cufflink" or "earring".
>
In fact "[eye]glass" is commonly used where "monocle" could be used, also
where "reading glass" could be used.
And then of course in the case of pants and pliers the singular forms do exist
but mean something completely unrelated to the pair forms.
M.
j. lyle
Distribution:
Gary wrote:
>
>Is there some root for "pant" that means "leg covering"; and is it the
>fact that these leg coverings always come joined from crotch to waist what
>gives us a pair of pants?
According to the OED2, "pants" is short for "pantaloons" (which was
occasionally used in the singular to refer to a pair of same--see below),
and "pant" is a back-formation from "pants."
Here are some snips from the relevant entries:
pantaloon pfntalu.n. Forms: 6 pantaloone, -loun, -lowne, 7 panteloun,
-lown, 7-8 pantalon, -lone, 7- -loon. [a. Fr. pantalon (1550 in
Hatz.-Darm.), ad. Ital. pantalone `a kind of mask on the Italian stage,
representing the Venetian' (Baretti), of whom Pantalone was a nickname,
supposed to be derived from the name of San Pantaleone or Pantalone,
formerly a favourite saint of the Venetians. ]
3. Applied at different periods to garments of different styles for the
legs. (Chiefly in pl.)
[obsolete sense]
a. A kind of breeches or trousers in fashion for some time after the
Restoration. Obs.
1661 Evelyn Tyranus in Mem. (1871) 751, I would choose..some fashion
not so pinching as to need a Shooing-horn with the Dons, nor so exorbitant
as the Pantaloons, which are a kind of Hermaphrodite and of neither Sex.
[Cf. `petticoat-breeches' in Fairholt Costume (ed. 1860) 254-5.]
1663 Butler Hud. i. iii. 924 And as the French we conquer'd once Now
give us laws for pantaloons, The length of breeches.
1686 tr. Chardin's Trav. Persia 87 They [Persians] wear little
shirts, that fall down to their knees, and tuck into a streight Pantaloon.
c. A tight-fitting kind of trousers fastened with ribbons or buttons below
the calf, or, later, by straps passing under the boots, which were
introduced late in the 18th c., and began to supersede knee-breeches.
d. Hence extended to trousers generally (especially in U.S., where this
use may have been independently taken directly from F. pantalon, a 1800).
1798 [implied in pantalooned].
1804 C. B. Brown tr. Volney's View Soil U.S. 360 He was dressed in
the American style; in a blue suit, with round hat and pantaloons.
1806-7 J. Beresford Miseries Hum. Life (1826) x. lxxxix, Loudly
bursting..the fastenings of your braces, and the strings of your
pantaloons behind.
1825 Retrospect. Rev. XII. 25 note, In October 1812, an order was
made by St. John's and Trinity College, that every young man who appeared
in Hall or Chapel in pantaloons or trowsers, should be considered as
absent.
1834 Planchi Brit. Costume 316 Pantaloons and Hessians boots were
introduced about the same period [i.e. c1789].
1855 Whittier Barefoot Boy 3 With thy turned-up pantaloons, And thy
merry whistled tunes.
1857 Chambers Inform. People I. 798/1 Pantaloons, which fitted close
to the leg, remained in very common use by those persons who had adopted
them till about the year 1814, when the wearing of trousers, already
introduced into the army, became fashionable.
1858 Gen. P. Thompson Audi Alt. I. xlviii. 187 British officers, in
all the priggery of sash and white pantaloon.
pants pfnts, sb. pl. orig. U.S. [Abbreviation of pantaloons. ]
1.
a. orig. = Pantaloons; subsequently used for trousers, worn by either men
or women. Chiefly U.S.
b. orig. colloquial and `shoppy' for `drawers'; now used for underpants,
panties, or shorts worn as an outer garment: cf. hot pants (hot a. 12 c).
pant pfnt, sb.3 [sing. back-formation f. pants sb. pl. ]
1. = pants sb. pl. U.S.
1893 H. A. Shands Some Peculiarities of Speech in Mississippi 49
Pant.., an
abbreviation of pantaloons, used by clerks in dry-goods stores. They
say: `I have a pant that I can sell you,' etc. Of course, pants is a
well-known abbreviation, but I think pant is rather a new word.
1936 A. L. Hench (MS. note dated Feb.), For six or seven years now, I
have been hearing clothes dealers speak of a pair of pants as `a fine
pant'. The reasoning seems to be that if a pile of pairs of pants is
pants, then one pair is a pant.
1962 L.L. Bean Catal. Spring 10 A practical and well made pant for
general sportswear.
1976 Billings (Montana) Gaz. 16 June 3-A/4 (Advt.), You just can't
beat the value of this 3-piece jacket/dress/pant ensemble at our
irresistible price... The pull-on pant makes a good thing better.
2. attrib. and Comb., as
pant-leg,
Skitt
David McMurray wrote in message <1dd1vtx.alo...@83-g1.kingston.net>...
Guess what! MWCD10 was offline for most of the day, and now it has a different
URL for the search screen:
http://www.m-w.com/mwcollegiate/dictionary.htm
Yes, it has the entry for "seamster", but how was I to know? Bummers! No
royalties.
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
If you are posting a reply, please, do not email it.
It just confuses me.
Skitt
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote in message
>In article <6pns7v$eo...@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>, "Skitt" <al...@myself.com> writes:
>
>>I don't know what AHD3 is saying but MWCD10 would support either
>>"These scissors are dull" or "this scissors is dull".
>
>And that sounds to me very much like saying "this pants is dirty" or "this
>pliers is too small".
No, no, no. That sounds like "this pant is dirty" or "this plier is too small"
or "these pants are dirty" or "these pliers are too small".
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
jl...@indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
>Gary wrote:
>>
>>Is there some root for "pant" that means "leg covering"; and is it the
>>fact that these leg coverings always come joined from crotch to waist what
>>gives us a pair of pants?
>
>According to the OED2, "pants" is short for "pantaloons" (which was
>occasionally used in the singular to refer to a pair of same--see below),
>and "pant" is a back-formation from "pants."
>
>Here are some snips from the relevant entries:
<snips snipped>
Thanks for all the research, but, for me, it at best moves the question back a
step. "Pantaloon" was apparently the original form, with "pantaloons" the
plural. How did a single garment come to be named in the plural form?
And your sources mention "breeches" and "trousers" as well. I would not be so
bold as there is a covering for a single leg known as a "trouser", nor that
there is a verb "to trous" that means "to cover a leg." But I do wonder that
so many names for leg coverings exist in plural form for a single garment.
Gary Williams
Mark Odegard
will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU (Gary Williams, Business Services
Accounting) in <6q2dpf$t4c$6...@news.cudenver.edu> wrote
|But I do wonder that
|so many names for leg coverings exist in plural form for a single garment.
So do I. I'm recovering from a 2-week newsfeed crash, and
perhaps someone has covered this, but everything the question
about the English concept of 'pair' comes up, I wonder if this
is somehow a survival, or perhaps and adaptation of the dual.
Some pairs are separable, as with shoes or gloves; others are
normally inseparable, as with pants or eyeglasses. What they all
have in common is the idea of a similar, non-identical set of
two, as with a left shoe and a right shoe, where the difference
is that of handedness.
If not a dual, there is certainly something that might be called
linguistic chirality. Do other languages have a special way of
dealing with left/right pairs? And what's the technical term for
it?
--
Mark Odegard. (descape to email)
Emailed copies of responses are very much appreciated.
J. Lyle
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting <will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU> wrote:
>In article <6ptq9j$15e$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>jl...@indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
>
>>Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>Is there some root for "pant" that means "leg covering"; and is it the
>>>fact that these leg coverings always come joined from crotch to waist what
>>>gives us a pair of pants?
>>
>>According to the OED2, "pants" is short for "pantaloons" (which was
>>occasionally used in the singular to refer to a pair of same--see below),
>>and "pant" is a back-formation from "pants."
>>
>>Here are some snips from the relevant entries:
>
><snips snipped>
>
>Thanks for all the research, but, for me, it at best moves the question back a
>step. "Pantaloon" was apparently the original form, with "pantaloons" the
>plural. How did a single garment come to be named in the plural form?
>
>And your sources mention "breeches" and "trousers" as well. I would not be so
>bold as there is a covering for a single leg known as a "trouser", nor that
>so many names for leg coverings exist in plural form for a single garment.
"Pantaloons" came into use later than the corresponding plurals "breeches"
(1200s), "drawers" (1560s), and "trousers" (1599 as "strossers," 1613 as
"trousers"; from "trews" and "trouse," which the OED2 says was singular
"but from the final (sound of) s treated as a plural"). It doesn't seem
surprising that names for similar types of garments were treated alike.
Nor does it seem surprising to me that a garment with a separate part for
each of the two legs would be thought of as plural, particularly in
comparison to garments for men that were not so separated.
The earliest citations for "pantaloon" are in the sense of
1.
a. The Venetian character in Italian comedy, represented as a lean and
foolish old man, wearing spectacles, pantaloons (see 3), and slippers
b. Hence, in modern harlequinade or pantomime, a character represented as
a foolish and vicious old man, the butt of the clown's jokes, and his
abettor in his pranks and tricks. [1590]
2. Hence applied in contempt to an enfeebled tottering old man; a dotard,
an old fool. Obs. exc. as echo of Shaks. [1596]
b. A nickname (app.) for Scottish courtiers after the Restoration. Obs.
3. Applied at different periods to garments of different styles for the
legs. (Chiefly in pl.)
[obsolete sense]
a. A kind of breeches or trousers in fashion for some time after the
Restoration. Obs.
Said by Evelyn (in context of quot. 1661) to have been taken by the French
from the costume of the stage-character of the period `when the freak
takes our Monsieurs to appear like so many Farces or Jack Puddings on the
stage'.
Aaron J. Dinkin
(delete the scape in netscape) wrote:
> So do I. I'm recovering from a 2-week newsfeed crash, and
> perhaps someone has covered this, but everything the question
> about the English concept of 'pair' comes up, I wonder if this
> is somehow a survival, or perhaps and adaptation of the dual.
>
> Some pairs are separable, as with shoes or gloves; others are
> normally inseparable, as with pants or eyeglasses. What they all
> have in common is the idea of a similar, non-identical set of
> two, as with a left shoe and a right shoe, where the difference
> is that of handedness.
>
> If not a dual, there is certainly something that might be called
> linguistic chirality. Do other languages have a special way of
> dealing with left/right pairs? And what's the technical term for
> it?
Hebrew expresses both categories - that is, separable and inseparable pairs
- with a vestige of the dual. The normal Hebrew plural suffixes are "-im"
(usually masculine) and "-ot" (usually feminine), but the old Hebrew dual
suffix was "-ayim", and it survives in (I believe) two contexts:
1) In expressions of time. "Shanah", 'year'; "shnatayim", 'two years'.
"Yom", 'day'; "yomayim", 'two days'. "Paam [achat]", '[on]ce'; "paamayim",
'twice'. These words also have normal plurals: "shanim", 'years'; "yamim",
'days'; "[harbeh] p'amim", '[several] times'.
2) To refer to either category of paired objects. "Naal", 'shoe';
"naalayim", 'shoes'. "Yad", 'hand'; "yadayim", 'hands'. "Ayin", 'eye';
"eynayim", 'eyes'. "Michnasayim", 'pants'. "Misparayim", 'scissors'.
"Mishkafayim", 'eyeglasses'. The separable pairs don't have normal plurals:
"shalosh naalayim", 'three shoes', not "naalim" - I suppose the dual was
used for these objects so much more often than the plural in ancient times
that when the dual/plural distinction dropped out of Hebrew these retained
the dual form as their plural. The inseparable pairs don't have singulars
or normal plurals - you can't say "michnas achat" any more than you can say
"one pant" in English. All in all, Hebrew seems remarkable similar to
English in the way it deals with such terms.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
jl...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (J. Lyle) writes:
>"Pantaloons" came into use later than the corresponding plurals "breeches"
>(1200s), "drawers" (1560s), and "trousers" (1599 as "strossers," 1613 as
>"trousers"; from "trews" and "trouse," which the OED2 says was singular
>"but from the final (sound of) s treated as a plural"). It doesn't seem
>surprising that names for similar types of garments were treated alike.
>Nor does it seem surprising to me that a garment with a separate part for
>each of the two legs would be thought of as plural, particularly in
>comparison to garments for men that were not so separated.
Nor does it seem surprising to me. The unifying characteristic of all the
things we've discussed here seems to be that there are two units working
together in a single instrument--scissors, pants, eyeglasses, But now my
curiosity is really piqued; you seem to be demonstrating that each of the
garments was originally a singular, but came to be seen as plural because of
their obvious bifurcations.
I also wonder about some other instruments. We learned early on that "scissor"
comes from a Latin root meaning to cut, and as a single blade could be a
cutting instrument, two of them, a pair, make a pair of scissors. Similarly
with glasses, as two lenses, each of which individually is a glass, but which
are employed together as a pair of glasses.
But this doesn't seem to me to work for things like compasses or pliers. Can
half of a pair of pliers ply? Can half of a pair of compasses compass? Can
half of a pair of calipers calip? So is the true explanation for the "pair of"
words that there is a single article with two distinct and very similar parts?
Gary Williams
Aaron J. Dinkin
> I also wonder about some other instruments. We learned early on that
> "scissor" comes from a Latin root meaning to cut, and as a single blade could
> be a cutting instrument, two of them, a pair, make a pair of scissors.
> Similarly with glasses, as two lenses, each of which individually is a glass,
> but which are employed together as a pair of glasses.
>
> But this doesn't seem to me to work for things like compasses or pliers. Can
> half of a pair of pliers ply? Can half of a pair of compasses compass?
I'm not sure what you're referring to as "a pair of compasses"; all the
compasses in my vocabulary are singular objects. If I had a circle-drawing
tool and a north-pointing magnet I'd have a pair of compasses, but not if I
only had one of them.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>I'm not sure what you're referring to as "a pair of compasses"; all the
>compasses in my vocabulary are singular objects.
I looked in my dictionary, hoping to find a killer response, but, alas, my
dictionary sides with you. I seemed to recollect being told by my 10th-grade
geometry teacher that it was not, properly, a compass, but a pair of compasses;
but as one of the most humiliating episodes of my academic career occurred in
that class, it is likely that this is just one more thing geometrical that I
didn't get right.
Gary Williams
Stephen Heneghan
Business Services Accounting) wrote:
When I first started geometry, about 1955, I was taught that the thing
for drawing circles and arcs was called 'a pair of compasses'.
Stephen Heneghan
Swansea
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU (Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting)
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
|In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>, adi...@commschool.org (Aaron J. Dinkin) writes:
|
|>I'm not sure what you're referring to as "a pair of compasses"; all the
|>compasses in my vocabulary are singular objects.
|
|I looked in my dictionary, hoping to find a killer response, but, alas, my
|dictionary sides with you. I seemed to recollect being told by my 10th-grade
|geometry teacher that it was not, properly, a compass, but a pair of compasses;
|but as one of the most humiliating episodes of my academic career occurred in
|that class, it is likely that this is just one more thing geometrical that I
|didn't get right.
Perhaps your teacher was confused or perhaps memory has had a trick on
you. A compass is a pair of dividers.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstor.html
* Do not put statements in the negative form.
K. Edgcombe
>
>>I'm not sure what you're referring to as "a pair of compasses"; all the
>>compasses in my vocabulary are singular objects.
>
>I looked in my dictionary, hoping to find a killer response, but, alas, my
>dictionary sides with you. I seemed to recollect being told by my 10th-grade
>geometry teacher that it was not, properly, a compass, but a pair of compasses;
It was a pair of compasses when I was at school; if the maths teachers were
wrong, they were unanimously and unhesitatingly wrong.
Katy
Frances Kemmish
>
> In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>, adi...@commschool.org (Aaron J. Dinkin) writes:
>
> >I'm not sure what you're referring to as "a pair of compasses"; all the
> >compasses in my vocabulary are singular objects.
>
> I looked in my dictionary, hoping to find a killer response, but, alas, my
> dictionary sides with you. I seemed to recollect being told by my 10th-grade
> geometry teacher that it was not, properly, a compass, but a pair of compasses;
> that class, it is likely that this is just one more thing geometrical that I
> didn't get right.
>
No, you just didn't look in the right dictionary. According to my
Chambers 20thC, under the definition of compass: "(pl.) a pair of
jointed legs used for describing circles etc."
Fran
David McMurray
wrote:
> In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
> adi...@commschool.org (Aaron J. Dinkin) writes:
>
> >I'm not sure what you're referring to as "a pair of compasses"; all the
> >compasses in my vocabulary are singular objects.
This is rather ambiguous. Are all the scissors and all the pants in your
vocabulary also singular objects which are not said to come in pairs? Or
do you mean that you would never refer to a compass as "compasses"? Some
people would.
> I looked in my dictionary, hoping to find a killer response, but, alas, my
> dictionary sides with you. I seemed to recollect being told by my
> 10th-grade geometry teacher that it was not, properly, a compass, but a
> pair of compasses; but as one of the most humiliating episodes of my
> academic career occurred in that class, it is likely that this is just one
> more thing geometrical that I didn't get right.
Don't be so hard on yourself - perhaps your teacher was talking about
dividers (a two-legged singular object), which are sometimes referred to
as a pair of dividers and are sometimes called compasses (a two-legged
singular object) and could conceivably be referred to as a pair of
compasses.
--
David
Mike Barnes
>In our last episode <6q8a2m$u4b$1...@news.cudenver.edu>,
>the lovely and talented will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU (Gary Williams, Business
>Services Accounting)
>broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>adi...@commschool.org (Aaron J. Dinkin) writes:
>|
>|>I'm not sure what you're referring to as "a pair of compasses"; all the
>|>compasses in my vocabulary are singular objects.
>|
>|dictionary sides with you. I seemed to recollect being told by my 10th-grade
>|geometry teacher that it was not, properly, a compass, but a pair of
>compasses;
>|but as one of the most humiliating episodes of my academic career occurred in
>|that class, it is likely that this is just one more thing geometrical that I
>|didn't get right.
>
>you. A compass is a pair of dividers.
I grew up with the idea of "a pair of compasses" that was quite
different to "a pair of dividers". My compasses had a spike and a pen
or pencil; my dividers had two spikes.
Chambers seems to agree with the plural form, if not the "pair of":
*compass* n. a circuit or circle; ... (pl.) a pair of jointed legs, for
describing circles, etc.
*divider* n. one who or that which divides; ... (pl.) a kind of
compasses for measuring.
--
-- Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
-- If you post a response to Usenet, please *don't* send me a copy by e-mail.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>Perhaps your teacher was confused or perhaps memory has had a trick on
>you. A compass is a pair of dividers.
Thanks.
I also remember my geometry teacher saying that a proper compass didn't have a
pencil at one end.
Can a single divider divide?
Gary Williams
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
Edgcombe) writes:
>It was a pair of compasses when I was at school; if the maths teachers were
>wrong, they were unanimously and unhesitatingly wrong.
Thanks for coming to the defense of my geometry teacher and my memory.
Gary Williams
li...@earthling.net
arc...@iconn.net wrote:
> Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
> >
> > In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
adi...@commschool.org (Aaron J. Dinkin) writes:
> >
> > >I'm not sure what you're referring to as "a pair of compasses"; all the
> > >compasses in my vocabulary are singular objects.
> >
> > I looked in my dictionary, hoping to find a killer response, but, alas, my
> > dictionary sides with you. I seemed to recollect being told by my 10th-
grade
> > geometry teacher that it was not, properly, a compass, but a pair of
compasses;
> > but as one of the most humiliating episodes of my academic career occurred
in
> > that class, it is likely that this is just one more thing geometrical that I
> > didn't get right.
> >
>
> Chambers 20thC, under the definition of compass: "(pl.) a pair of
> jointed legs used for describing circles etc."
>
(Clears throat) Er, excuse me, I've got a pair of jointed legs and can
describe a circle. Am I a compass?
I was also brought up to call the things used to draw circles "a pair of
compasses" but I did go to a grammar school, perhaps that's got something to
do with it. I have no dictionary to hand, unfortunately, but will try to
remember to look up both "compass" and "compasses" tonight at home.
Linz
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
RossHoward
>I was also brought up to call the things used to draw circles "a pair of
>compasses" but I did go to a grammar school, perhaps that's got something to
>do with it. I have no dictionary to hand, unfortunately, but will try to
>remember to look up both "compass" and "compasses" tonight at home.
Linz and I must have gone to the same grammar school. My lack of skill
with "(a pair of) compasses" was what made me miserable in Maths,
while "a compass" did the same job in Geography.
Ross H.
li...@earthling.net
Well, while I may wish we had gone to the same grammar school it would have
been impossible unless a) Ross is a girl's name or b) your mother made you
wear a navy blue skirt a lot... Perhaps you attended the sibling boys' school
down the road. Totally irrelevantly, someone who *did* go to the same grammar
school as me is Geri Halliwell.
What made me miserable in Maths was an inability to remember long strings of
numbers and operations for mental arithmatic.
Linz, wondering how she got her current job.
RossHoward
>In article <35c99cff...@noticias.ibernet.es>,
> rossh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> Linz and I must have gone to the same grammar school. My lack of skill
>> with "(a pair of) compasses" was what made me miserable in Maths,
>> while "a compass" did the same job in Geography.
>Well, while I may wish we had gone to the same grammar school it would have
>been impossible unless a) Ross is a girl's name or b) your mother made you
>wear a navy blue skirt a lot... Perhaps you attended the sibling boys' school
>down the road. Totally irrelevantly, someone who *did* go to the same grammar
>school as me is Geri Halliwell.
Like I'd use my real name on the Net, like.
(By the way, am I the one who left or the one who's going out with
that footballer who everybody hates? I forgot.)
Ross H.
li...@earthling.net
li...@earthling.net wrote:
>
> I was also brought up to call the things used to draw circles "a pair of
> compasses" but I did go to a grammar school, perhaps that's got something to
> do with it. I have no dictionary to hand, unfortunately, but will try to
> remember to look up both "compass" and "compasses" tonight at home.
>
train, so I hope you're all very proud of me...
New Collins Concise English Dictionary (1986)
Compass: 1. Also called: Magnetic compass ...
2. (often plural) Also called: pair of compasses. an instrument used
for drawing circles, measuring distances, etc., that consists of two arms,
joined at one end.
Linz
li...@earthling.net
only just turned 26 (Happy Birthday for yesterday, by the way) or "Fat", which
I think is a gross slur on all women size 12 (US 8 or 10, I think).
The one engaged to the footballer is called "Posh" because her parents aren't
divorced.
RossHoward
>> (By the way, am I the one who left or the one who's going out with
>> that footballer who everybody hates? I forgot.)
>>
>You're the one who left. You were often referred to as "Old" although you've
>only just turned 26 (Happy Birthday for yesterday, by the way) or "Fat", which
>I think is a gross slur on all women size 12 (US 8 or 10, I think).
Ah, so I'm the one with the Rubensian/Lewinskine build, then. No
problem with that. Hey, didn't I get my kit off for Playboy or
something, too, brassy little minx that I am?
Ross H.