A pare of pants or trousers!

[Blademonkey]

This has been bugging me for some time and I thought you gentleman may be able to work this out for me.

You pick up a pair of socks, I get that, there's two of them but then you slip into a pair of pants before you pick up a pair of trousers and put them on! However this is were the madness ends because you don't pull on a pair of shirt and then go on to put your pair of jacket on.
So what's with, a pair of pants or a pair of trousers?
Or is it only me who has ended up saying these things!
Yes, I know it's 2am but when you can't get the thought out of your head I've always found it best to get it written down to be looked at in the morning or post it on TSR!

I look forward to seeing your thoughts on this matter.

Thank you.

Paul.

 

[whitesix]

Paul when I first read the title I thought you were going down the pants or trousers route; but, no, this is much more of a dilemma!
And then of course there is the tricky question of the order of dress, which sometimes depends as to if you are with company or on your own.
Perhaps the answer to your question is that the legs (and feet) are situated side by side (well give or take), where as the arms are separated by the torso?

Luckily April fools was a few days ago!

 

[globalm]

I believe that trousers, pants (British usage) etc. were originally derived from garments with separate legs. Hence pair.

Could be nonsense though.

Edit. - or might be true

What is the etymology of a pair of trousers

According to the accepted answer here, Why is the word "pants" plural?, it's because trousers were originally made in two parts and fastened together when worn. This sounds like a folk

english.stackexchange.com

 

[Blademonkey]

Paul when I first read the title I thought you were going down the pants or trousers route; but, no, this is much more of a dilemma!
And then of course there is the tricky question of the order of dress, which sometimes depends as to if you are with company or on your own.
Perhaps the answer to your question is that the legs (and feet) are situated side by side (well give or take), where as the arms are separated by the torso?

Luckily April fools was a few days ago!

Usually I put my pants ( underwear) on first because there is nothing more ridiculous to see than a man just wearing a pair of socks!
YMMV!

 

[Blademonkey]

I believe that trousers, pants (British usage) etc. were originally derived from garments with separate legs. Hence pair.

Could be nonsense though.

Edit. - or might be true

What is the etymology of a pair of trousers

According to the accepted answer here, Why is the word "pants" plural?, it's because trousers were originally made in two parts and fastened together when worn. This sounds like a folk

english.stackexchange.com

Thank you, makes sense
I can now rest easy at night!

Paul.

 

[donnie_arko]

Usually I put my pants ( underwear) on first because there is nothing more ridiculous to see than a man just wearing a pair of socks!
YMMV!

Wearing socks = business
Not wearing anything else = pleasure

But with the cold and gas prices, I'd advise to wear as much clothing as possible.

 

[Jester]

Thank you, makes sense
I can now rest easy at night!

Paul.

Really Paul? I present this for your consideration. Sweet dreams

 

[whitesix]

Usually I put my pants ( underwear) on first because there is nothing more ridiculous to see than a man just wearing a pair of socks!
YMMV!

I believe the perceived method of etiquette when dressing in company is pants, trousers, socks, shoes, shirt, tie, jacket; if not in company; vest, socks, run around the house trying to find your pants, shirt, tie etc!

 

[Merkurologist]

Really Paul? I present this for your consideration. Sweet dreams

View attachment 86430

2 pairs of scissors?

 

[Boycie83]

Really Paul? I present this for your consideration. Sweet dreams

View attachment 86430

Scissor Sisters

 

[Satanfriendly]

I believe that trousers, pants (British usage) etc. were originally derived from garments with separate legs. Hence pair.

You mean a pair of pair of trousers?

 

[Jester]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wor...xt=nothing.,that represents a singular object.

 

[Bogeyman]

Really Paul? I present this for your consideration. Sweet dreams

View attachment 86430

Scissores, silly.

 

[Zorro]

I believe the perceived method of etiquette when dressing in company is pants, trousers, socks, shoes, shirt, tie, jacket; if not in company; vest, socks, run around the house trying to find your pants, shirt, tie etc!

I can quote from "Debretts Guide for The Modern Gentleman", Chapter 5, "Dressing procedures, when a Valet is unavailable" where it advises ;

"If a chap already has his trousers to hand, when trying to locate his socks and smalls, then it is acceptable for said chap to don trousers only, in the style referred to as "commando" , whilst attempting to locate his finery"

 

[jimmyc]

I can quote from "Debretts Guide for The Modern Gentleman", Chapter 5, "Dressing procedures, when a Valet is unavailable" where it advises ;

"If a chap already has his trousers to hand, when trying to locate his socks and smalls, then it is acceptable for said chap to don trousers only, in the style referred to as "commando" , whilst attempting to locate his finery"

I can understand commando, where is/what is my finery.
I have socks to buy.

 

[Blademonkey]

I can quote from "Debretts Guide for The Modern Gentleman", Chapter 5, "Dressing procedures, when a Valet is unavailable" where it advises ;

"If a chap already has his trousers to hand, when trying to locate his socks and smalls, then it is acceptable for said chap to don trousers only, in the style referred to as "commando" , whilst attempting to locate his finery"

He's a mucky chap, surely he should be reaching out for a fresh set of both from his chest of drawers!

Paul.