It seems that most of the world calls trousers.. pants..... In India, when they're talking in English, they always seem to refer to trousers as pants. I know in Australia, New Zealand and Canada they call them pants too.
Hmmm...... We are weird aren't we lol.... We also drive on the wrong side of the road lol.
Nah, they're the weird ones. English was invented......well in England
I'm from Lancashire and it's only really there I've heard English people use 'pants' to mean 'trousers', seemingly in the rest of the country they use 'trousers' and call 'underwear' 'pants'. Alas, it's a habit I've picked up, so I could mean trousers or underwear depending on the context.
A southerner myself, I once stayed with an aunt-in-law-to-be in Manchester. In her seventies, she no doubt still thought of herself as being in Lancashire. I came back one day to be greeted with, "I went through your room and picked up several pants which I've washed for you - they were filthy!"
I was in a bit of a stew until I realised that it couldn't be just Americans who use "pants" to mean "trousers". (Then I got in another stew about her audacity in just "going through" my room while I was out... :mad:)
In America (and possibly elsewhere) pants preserved its meaning for an outer garment worn on the legs (just not so tight-fitting). At some point in England it came to mean a garment worn under the clothes.
So it seems once again the Americans were scrupulous and careful preservers of a word while the English went crazy, festooning the word with new meanings!
In America (and possibly elsewhere) pants preserved its meaning for an outer garment worn on the legs (just not so tight-fitting). At some point in England it came to mean a garment worn under the clothes.
So it seems once again the Americans were scrupulous and careful preservers of a word while the English went crazy, festooning the word with new meanings!
Don't tar us all with the same brush I refer to trousers as pants. Underwear is underpants, not pants.
STOP - Its a local dialect phenomenon that’s crept into mainstream!
'Pants' is the correct term... In the North of England I was brought up using the word 'pants' as the main description of what you normally have on (apart from Jenes). 'Trousers' was used when wearing either a suit or uniform.... I'm shure that is the correct old-school way.
A lot of friends and relatives also use the word that way too. 'Work pants' is another form of 'pants' too that has been around ages.
It was only recently when 'Pants' began to creep in as a description of something crap or bad. This seems to be used a lot more in the South. "That’s pants" or utter pants" - only heard it on TV and rarely hear it up ere!. Underpants is another term for Underwear not 'Pants'
I've just remembered the word Pantaloon possibly where pants is derived from?
During the French Revolution, the male citizens of France adopted a working-class costume including ankle-length trousers or pantaloons in place of the aristocratic knee-breeches. This style was introduced to England in the early 19th century, possibly by Beau Brummell, and supplanted breeches as fashionable street wear by mid-century. Breeches survived into the 1940s as the plus-fours or knickers worn for active sports and by young school-boys.
I'm from Lancashire and refer to trousers as pants.
If fact I find the whole conept of referring to underwear as pants slightly weird. I've always called them underpants (because lo and behold, they go under your pants).
In America (and possibly elsewhere) pants preserved its meaning for an outer garment worn on the legs (just not so tight-fitting). At some point in England it came to mean a garment worn under the clothes.
So it seems once again the Americans were scrupulous and careful preservers of a word while the English went crazy, festooning the word with new meanings!
But the word trousers comes from the middle english word trouse - "Trews" is also a scottish word for trousers and also refers to the leg coverings worn by scotsmen.
In America (and possibly elsewhere) pants preserved its meaning for an outer garment worn on the legs (just not so tight-fitting). At some point in England it came to mean a garment worn under the clothes.
So it seems once again the Americans were scrupulous and careful preservers of a word while the English went crazy, festooning the word with new meanings!
I always assumed that pants was an abreviation of pantaloons - which is just another word for trousers.
Knickers go under your trousers so are underpants.
Don't tar us all with the same brush I refer to trousers as pants. Underwear is underpants, not pants.
I was just commenting on the fact that some of the posters were convinced their usage of pants to mean underpants was 'correct English'--when in fact the Americans (and apparently a good number of English) still use the original meaning. In fact it seems as though the pants=underpants people are the ones who've changed the meaning of the word.
I personally don't have any problem with the English language growing and changing and regional variations popping up--it makes it a richer language. However I am always amused when people assume their usage of the English language is somehow purer because of where they live--totally ignoring the fact that English as spoken in parts of England has in fact changed--and sometimes words and phrases spoken in America or Canada are more in keeping with traditional English.
Comments
Nah, they're the weird ones. English was invented......well in England
I hate it when people try to correct me - don't talk to me about proper use of English, I am English
(I'm aware there are probably half a dozen errors in this post. English was never my strong point
A southerner myself, I once stayed with an aunt-in-law-to-be in Manchester. In her seventies, she no doubt still thought of herself as being in Lancashire. I came back one day to be greeted with, "I went through your room and picked up several pants which I've washed for you - they were filthy!"
I was in a bit of a stew until I realised that it couldn't be just Americans who use "pants" to mean "trousers". (Then I got in another stew about her audacity in just "going through" my room while I was out... :mad:)
But to an american Vest = Waistcoat
http://podictionary.com/?p=380
In America (and possibly elsewhere) pants preserved its meaning for an outer garment worn on the legs (just not so tight-fitting). At some point in England it came to mean a garment worn under the clothes.
So it seems once again the Americans were scrupulous and careful preservers of a word while the English went crazy, festooning the word with new meanings!
Don't tar us all with the same brush I refer to trousers as pants. Underwear is underpants, not pants.
'Pants' is the correct term... In the North of England I was brought up using the word 'pants' as the main description of what you normally have on (apart from Jenes). 'Trousers' was used when wearing either a suit or uniform.... I'm shure that is the correct old-school way.
A lot of friends and relatives also use the word that way too. 'Work pants' is another form of 'pants' too that has been around ages.
It was only recently when 'Pants' began to creep in as a description of something crap or bad. This seems to be used a lot more in the South. "That’s pants" or utter pants" - only heard it on TV and rarely hear it up ere!. Underpants is another term for Underwear not 'Pants'
Origin:
1585–95; trouse (var. of trews ) + (draw)ers
I've never called underwear pants
Underpants yes, but pants are trousers.
Same here, from a Yorkshireman.
But the word trousers comes from the middle english word trouse - "Trews" is also a scottish word for trousers and also refers to the leg coverings worn by scotsmen.
So blame the Scots
I always assumed that pants was an abreviation of pantaloons - which is just another word for trousers.
Knickers go under your trousers so are underpants.
I personally don't have any problem with the English language growing and changing and regional variations popping up--it makes it a richer language. However I am always amused when people assume their usage of the English language is somehow purer because of where they live--totally ignoring the fact that English as spoken in parts of England has in fact changed--and sometimes words and phrases spoken in America or Canada are more in keeping with traditional English.