Hosting location connectivity issues affecting log in and payment servers. It's out of our hands. Your patience is appreciated.
Hide
Home ยป Forum ยป Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

I'm confused

TheDarkKnight ๐Ÿšซ

For as long as I can remember, the word "pants" was used to refer to trousers, as in long pants, short pants, work pants, and dress pants. Now I've noticed lately some ads for 'pant'. I checked on a couple of dictionary and thesaurus sites, and can't find pant as something to wear. When did this become a thing? Is this some Gen-Z abbreviation like 'delish' for 'delicious'?

And don't get me started on panties. "Oh look, we can see Suzy's panties", not " ... we can see Suzy's panty", unless it's her panty liner.

Yes, I'm bored this afternoon.

rustyken ๐Ÿšซ

@TheDarkKnight

Since pants refers to a two legged garment, I guess if you buy a pant you only get one leg. ;-)

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@rustyken

I guess if you buy a pant you only get one leg.

Following a broken bone in his foot, Indian wicketkeeper Rishabh Pant is pretty much one-legged at the moment :-(

AJ

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@rustyken

Since pants refers to a two legged garment, I guess if you buy a pant you only get one leg. ;-)

I've read that way back when the word pants originated, "pants" were actually two pieces, one for each leg. They tied together at the waist and overlapped enough in the crotch to keep the private bits private, but were not stitched together.

I would be neither surprised not bothered by the English language moving towards a singular term centuries after "pants" became a singular garment.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

I would be neither surprised not bothered by the English language moving towards a singular term centuries after "pants" became a singular garment.

The transition period would be 'interesting. A pair of pants - how many garments?

AJ

Diamond Porter ๐Ÿšซ

@rustyken

When they first started wearing "hose," the two legs were separate. Each was tied to the waistband, and a codpiece was necessary to cover the gap between them.

I don't know if they were still doing this when the variant called "pantaloons" came into fashion.

By the time they started calling them pants, they were always joined.

Crumbly Writer ๐Ÿšซ

@rustyken

It's the opposite of "buy one, get one free". Now it's officially, "buy one pant at full price, then fork over for the other, as this ain't technically inflation or a cost increase, it's instead a new 'pricing procedure'".

Replies:   The Outsider
The Outsider ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

a new 'pricing procedure

That's why Wendy's will never see another dollar from me... "Time of day pricing" my butt...

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer ๐Ÿšซ

@The Outsider

Actually, I can sympathize with that, especially during summer, where they mostly demand on untrained seasonal workers who often won't show up when they're expected to because they have something 'better to do'.

So by offering discounts during their off periods often helps defer their user's frustrations and anger, by easing the strain on their own workers. That's not 'inconsistent' pricing, that addressing their users issues as best as they can during difficult periods.

But then, when I visit Wendy's, it's rarely for the lunch crowd, instead I'll pick up their burgers and then carry them home to each, or I'll stop in when they're NOT crowded (some locations aren't nearly as busy as others, so knowing which ones to visit while on the road is a sensible practice.

Summertime crowds create their own chaos, which simply calling your order in ahead of time helps to offset (though I've never tried that with Wendy's, and don't even know whether they have a 'remote order' service, having never tried it myself.

Yet living in a summer beach resort community, we're especially aware of such concerns.

Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@TheDarkKnight

First things first: I agree about 'pant'. It grates on me. It makes sense, but 'making sense' has traditionally not worked well for making changes to English :)

On the other hand, this:

Is this some Gen-Z abbreviation like 'delish' for 'delicious'?

is incorrect. 'Delish' emerged around 1910 and has been going strong since the 1920s. Gen Z may have adopted it, but it hardly originates with them. I don't use it much myself, but I remember seeing it on menus and advertisements many decades ago.

Mind you, there are plenty of actually awful modern abbreviations. 'Delish' just doesn't happen to be one of them.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

Ngrams' first non-zero for delish is 1803. Up until the turn of this century, which is the last point on my graph, delicious has always been at least 10,000 times more common than delish.

AJ

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

Did you try restricting your Ngram search by location (i.e. nation), as it would make more sense it it was of, say, Scottish or some non-English variant. English is great at borrowing words, making them our own? After all, 1803 to 1920 was a time of a large-scale immigration by select European nationalities, rather than a massive immigration due to widespread war or famine (aside from WWI, of course, so that's likely an aberration).

ian_macf ๐Ÿšซ

@TheDarkKnight

I have seen 'pant' in connection with the clothing industry and trade, but not in general usage. Of course, here in Australia pants are what you wear under trousers, unless you use the term underpants or undies. In the clothing trade, even here in Australia, I think 'pant' refers to the 'over-garment' not the 'under-garment'.

Ian

DBActive ๐Ÿšซ

@TheDarkKnight

The only time I recall seeing seeing "pant" instead of "pants" is in the stories by Bronte Follower. In his long, long, long story Beth there is a lot of (stupid) odiscussion about this and "panty" vs "panties."

TheDarkKnight ๐Ÿšซ

@TheDarkKnight

Lots of responses, guess I wasn't the only one who was bored today.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer ๐Ÿšซ

@TheDarkKnight

Yep, this is where all the SOL authors are bored, not making progress of their stories and thus respond or post out of boredom or frustration.

Diamond Porter ๐Ÿšซ

@TheDarkKnight

It occurs to me that to make a pant, the tailor would have to cut the fabric with a scissor.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer ๐Ÿšซ

@Diamond Porter

So, would that mean that each 'pant' is now only a single gasp (i.e. "he panted from jogging" via "he pant from rushing").

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@TheDarkKnight

not " ... we can see Suzy's panty"

I never heard "pant" used for "pants/trousers" but "panty" is legit.

First it's used like in the following examples:

1. This skirt doesn't show a panty line.
2. It seemed the college had a panty raid every other week.
3. That pervert is a panty sniffer.

But it can also be used to describe a single undergarment as in:

"I bought a blue panty while at the store." Writing "I bought a blue panties" is grammatically wrong while "I bought blue panties" sounds like you bought more than one. You'd have to say "I bought a pair of blue panties" or simply make it singular with "panty."

Replies:   DBActive
DBActive ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

In the first 3 examples the word is used as an adjective, not a noun.
In the last, the only times i have seen or heard the singular used is by the store in ads such as "buy one panty and get a second free."

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@DBActive

In the first 3 examples the word is used as an adjective, not a noun.

I actually think it's a compound noun.

REP ๐Ÿšซ

@TheDarkKnight

The original meaning, and evolution, of words and phrases is important. However, my personal opinion is the issue is not the evolution of the word's meaning; it is about why the word's meaning was dropped from the dictionary.

The people who prepare the meanings of words to be included in their dictionary seem to have forgotten the purpose of a dictionary. Namely to define the meaning of a word's usage in the verbal and written mediums, both current and past usage.

Their opinion seems to be - if the word meaning is not in common usage, then the meaning should be excluded from the definition. To HELL with the fact that the word and its prior meaning still exist in the written medium.

The result of their short-sightedness is a major deficiency in their dictionary.

Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

Most dictionaries document the language as it is used today, not as it was used long ago. That's more the province of specialty dictionaries (e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary).

I sympathize with your desire for completeness, and rely on multiple sources for that very reason. At the same time, however, most people are not well served by a dictionary that includes too many archaic words, and especially if they're not flagged as archaic.

An 'unabridged' dictionary should, but there is still a lot of room for disagreement as to whether a word last in common usage several centuries ago is still a part of the English language or not. Yes, English tends to be a snowball, accumulating everything it passes by, but there's room for even snowballs to jettison some debris along the way.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer  REP
Crumbly Writer ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Grey Wolf

Of course, which words are appropriate for the dialogue are often quite different than those for the narrative, or for each character's particular voice, again. However, unless you're fairly well versed in 'voices', it's better not testing your luck, as it's a damn good way of hanging yourself.

Still, I've purposely used 'archaic terms' multiple times, and not just for my last time-travel story. It's all in knowing when to use such terms and when it's utterly inappropriate. Still, it's not something few newbies to try without studying it for some time.

P.S. I've always been partial to 'morrow' (alternately for later today, in the morning or the following day), as it's not often you find such an all-encompassing term with such a range of different usage depending entirely on context.

REP ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

archaic word

Is the word archaic or is it that some of its meanings are archaic?

There are many authors on SOL and in the publishing world that set their stories in the past. To make the story seem realistic, they use the archaic meaning of words. If the reader is not familiar with a word's archaic meaning, then they go to a dictionary to learn what A word means in the context used.

I see a problem with excluding a word's archaic meanings from dictionaries. I see no problem with defining the meaning to be archaic in the dictionary.

Replies:   Grey Wolf  jimq2
Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

Most unabridged dictionaries (not all of them) list archaic meanings (and, often, flag them with 'archaic'). Abridged dictionaries are, by definition, omitting things.

For historical fiction, readers may well have to go to specialty dictionaries. But that's what I would expect, as a reader.

jimq2 ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

My copies of the Webster Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, starting with a first edition 1963, give the archaic meanings.

storiesonline_23 ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

it is about why the word's meaning was dropped from the dictionary.

My favourite lexicographer wrote to explain the omission of some words from the Oxford Junior Dictionary. The best bit:

Tell me now, which 5,000 words would YOU put in a dictionary for 7-9-year-olds? Go on, I dare you. I double-dare you.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer ๐Ÿšซ

@storiesonline_23

I appreciate his sense of humor, but as a fairly precocious teen, he's absolutely right, as some kids are 'old souls' while many never seem to grow up.

Back to Top

 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.


Log In