-
Because the two socks are not connected right?
So trousers and tights I get, two legs, connected at the top. But, pants? There's only one pant. There's no legs to have two of, everything is one.
If pants are a pair, why is a bra not? It's got more multiples of parts than pants.
Is it only legs that can have pairs? If not then why are tshirts, jumpers, shirts, jackets etc not pairs? There's (usually) two sleeves.
Gloves are pairs but they're like socks and aren't connected. Are oven gloves singular or a pair?
M_V-
There's only one pant. There's no legs to have two of, everything is one.
Not sure how you're wearing your pants, but the rest of us put them on one leg at a time, from the obviously bifurcated bloomer to the barely there French knicker. Topologically, they all have two openings and a closed boundary
Since a pullover or t-shirt has three openings, it would be a triplet rather than a pair if English had gone done that route. The fact that pants, tights, trousers, spectacles and scissors are commonly referred to as "a pair of.." despite mostly having no meaning outside of their inherent pairwise structure is otherwise an entirely arbitrary happenstance of linguistic development
-
So trousers and tights I get, two legs, connected at the top.
For trousers and stockings, the reason for "pair" is that there was a time when they were genuinely two separate parts. Doesn't explain pants, though.
gbj_tester
itsbruce
The clothing analogue is not socks, it's trousers, tights and pants.