Forum: Author Hangout

I'm confused

TheDarkKnight 🚫

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.

Replies: rustyken Grey Wolf ian_macf DBActive TheDarkKnight Diamond Porter Switch Blayde REP TheDarkKnight Dick Fuchs zitqhile

rustyken 🚫

@TheDarkKnight

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

Replies: awnlee jawking Dominions Son Diamond Porter Crumbly Writer

awnlee jawking 🚫

@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 🚫
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 Mushroom

awnlee jawking 🚫

@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

Mushroom 🚫

@Dominions Son

It is an interesting holdover to an earlier time.

And it was much the same in other garments. Most know what a Doublet is, but most likely do not know that the sleeves were not actually sewn onto the garment but tied on. So in warm weather or doing chores they could be removed and still leave the wearer properly clothed.

In the era before zippers or snaps, garments were most commonly tied. Even buttons until the 18th century were more of a decoration and fashion statement than a key part of the structure of clothing. And that really only took off in real practice in the 1800s when the sewing machine made creating durable button holes a reality.

Diamond Porter 🚫

@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 🚫

@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 🚫
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 🚫

@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 🚫

@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 🚫

@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 🚫

@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 🚫

@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 🚫

@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 🚫

@TheDarkKnight

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

Replies: Crumbly Writer

Crumbly Writer 🚫

@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 🚫

@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 🚫

@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 🚫

@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 🚫

@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 🚫

@DBActive

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

I actually think it's a compound noun.

Replies: DBActive awnlee jawking

DBActive 🚫

@Switch Blayde

You might be right, but either way, it's not used as a separate word except in unusual circumstances.

Replies: Crumbly Writer

Crumbly Writer 🚫

@DBActive

Except, different tools count words differently, so some will treat a compound word as multiple words while others treat it a only one, while other either won't count 'publish marks' (ellipses and em-dashes) at all or will count them as separate words. So your word counts start getting crazy anytime you use a different counter (say between writing and publishing).

That kind of thing drives me up the wall.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I actually think it's a compound noun.

I think they are too. If the word before 'panty' was an adjective, by the rules of order of adjectives it should be possible to separate the two by a purpose/qualifier adjective type. In each case, I don't think that's possible without changing the meaning.

AJ

REP 🚫

@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.

Replies: Grey Wolf storiesonline_23

Grey Wolf 🚫

@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 🚫
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 🚫

@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 🚫

@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.

Replies: REP awnlee jawking

REP 🚫
Updated:

@Grey Wolf

readers may well have to go to specialty dictionaries

I have never heard of "specialty dictionaries", other than medical and legal dictionaries.

Do you have an example of a historical dictionary for fiction?

Replies: samuelmichaels Switch Blayde

samuelmichaels 🚫

@REP

I have never heard of "specialty dictionaries", other than medical and legal dictionaries.

Do you have an example of a historical dictionary for fiction?

https://www.janeausten.org/regency-period-glossary.php
https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Dictionary-Elizabethan-World-Britain/dp/1573562009

Replies: Vincent Berg

Vincent Berg 🚫

@samuelmichaels

There are also user-specific dictionaries, so you can add the words you most use (i.e. frequently used names or locations). However, if you start using a separate use-dictionary for each individual story, things can get out of control pretty quickly (ex: if the diction becomes too large, it effectively stops works efficiently, either slowing or simply not processing the specific words).

Switch Blayde 🚫

@REP

Do you have an example of a historical dictionary for fiction?

https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/Glossary.aspx

"If you are looking for a word and it doesn't appear in the Glossary, this will be because it has the same sense in Modern English, and can be found in any general dictionary. We only include words that no longer exist in Modern English, have changed their meaning since Shakespeare's day, or have an encyclopedic or specialized sense that would make them unfamiliar to many modern readers."

Replies: REP

REP 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Many thanks to you and to samuelmichaels for the links. Considering the price of the dictionaries, I doubt that I will ever buy one. That is especially true due to my not writing stories in that period of history.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Grey Wolf

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

All dictionaries are abridged. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, drops entries for existing words and doesn't add entries for new words if the usage levels drop too low. (I was told the criteria but they escape my memory).

Anecdotally, even the most complete dictionary only includes entries for about 10% of the words in the English language.

AJ

Replies: Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I agree about the OED, though it's the closest thing we have. 'Unabridged' is, ultimately, a marketing term.

The OED contains 600,000 words. Most high-end estimates for the number of English words are about one million, give or take a bit. I'm not sure where your 10% number comes from, but it seems likely to be incorrect.

Replies: AmigaClone awnlee jawking Rodeodoc

AmigaClone 🚫

@Grey Wolf

I can see the 10% number being overly generous if considering only those dictionaries originally printed as a single volume.

This would exclude some dictionaries printed in multiple volumes such as the first two editions of the OED.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Grey Wolf

I'm not sure where your 10% number comes from, but it seems likely to be incorrect.

It's obviously a made-up figure but it came from a former OED-compiler (a guest speaker at a writer's group meeting).

AJ

Replies: Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Interesting. One would have to assume that person thinks English has at least 6 million words. I don't see much evidence for that hypothesis.

I might bend on it if English-based acronyms were counted as 'words' (by one estimate, there are over 4 million English-based acronyms out there). But that's bending the rules somewhat, I think.

For instance, I would say it's arguable that 'SCSI' and 'NASA' are generally word-like. But, say, is 'OMW'? Or 'PEBKAC'? How about the endless list of military acronyms?

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫
Updated:

@Grey Wolf

One would have to assume that person thinks English has at least 6 million words. I don't see much evidence for that hypothesis.

My major concern would be over the validity of the words. If every word that has ever occurred in written/printed English is included, I'd expect a high proportion of typos.

AJ

Replies: Crumbly Writer

Crumbly Writer 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I'd trust that it's factoring into ALL the words which Americans are likely to use, including Latin, Greek, Dutch, Finish, Japanese, Korean, etc. We've incorporated all kinds of different terms into English, so if you then count every single word in each of the commonly accepted phrases, you have a whole passel full. ;)

Rodeodoc 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Interesting the number of words in the OED. The Scrabble dictionary has 267,000 words, most of which were invented by my wife's grandmother so she could use all her letters. I've always felt that at least 20% of the words there were never used in regular speech.

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫
Updated:

@Rodeodoc

I've always felt that at least 20% of the words there were never used in regular speech.

Way back when I had my first job, my co-worker at the desk next to mine hung up after talking to her husband and told me that he was reading the dictionary again. In response to my "Huh?" she explained that many of the words he used talking to her began with the same letter.

jimq2 🚫

@REP

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

storiesonline_23 🚫

@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 🚫

@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.

Replies: Fick Suck

Fick Suck 🚫

@Crumbly Writer

Young fools grow up to be...old fools.

TheDarkKnight 🚫

@TheDarkKnight

Geez, this thread started with a silly comment about a company selling 'pant', and now it's taken off like a California wildfire. This continues to be a fascinating community.

Replies: Pixy

Pixy 🚫

@TheDarkKnight

This continues to be a fascinating community

Umm..

community

You spelt 'zoo' wrong.

Dick Fuchs 🚫

@TheDarkKnight

By a PopularAI

There once was a woman named Cindy,
Whose panty collection was windy,
She'd wear a new panty,
Then change into panties,
Until her drawers were all filled, oh so spindy!

Her panty drawer overflowed with such glee,
Panties of lace, and a panty with a tree,
"These panty designs are simply divine,"
She said, pulling on panties, and sipping her wine.

So many panties, she'd never be bored,
Each day she'd wear a new panty, adored!
But one day, dear Cindy, lost in her trance,
Wore a panty, then found—no panties—by chance!

zitqhile 🚫

@TheDarkKnight

It seems like the waist is the line where below the waist it is with an s or a pair of. Above the waist almost everything is singular. Pants below, a shirt above. A pair of underwear, an undershirt/bra.

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

I'm confused

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...