Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Another possible rationale for the use of the plural for pants and pantaloons: Before men began wearing pantaloons regularly in the Renaissance, the lower garment covering men's legs was hose, worn in two pieces and often laced together to look something like tights. Stylish men came to wear the puffy Spanish pantaloons over their hose, working men wore loose-fitting pantaloons in place of hose. I suggest that the usage from "a pair of hose" carried over to the new garment. Query: Did the Continental languages use the plural for one of these garments during the Renaissance?
When I heard that pantaloons were named after the person who wore them, I immediately assumed that the 's' was added as possessive - not plural. It would be natural to say that someone was wearing a garment like Pantalone's, or "I'm wearing Pantalone's clothing." This use would then be shortened to just "pantaloons", which only implies that it is plural.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)