-
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
gbj_tester-
Not sure how you're wearing your pants, but the rest of us put them on one leg at a time,
I’ve always thought this ‘putting trousers on one leg at a time’ thing was a bit wrong. I mean, you maybe put your feet through the leg holes one at a time but thats like what, a fifth of the entire putting them on operation innit, you’d pull them up both legs at the same time and can’t do up the button/belt/drawstring until both legs are fully in place.
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.
4 Shirley? The big yin at the bottom, two arm holes, one head hole?
M_V
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?