From the very same shop that brought you this, today another window-sized poster.

Nike Woven Pant

Half Price

Maximum two per customer

I've never seen a singular pant but, as it's less than the maximum, I'm tempted to go in and ask for one.

pant

Maybe the shop is hot. No, according to the news it should be cool.

I am reminded of this.

I've seen pant, with the meaning of trousers, in the singular. Here is an example.

I've heard it too, on fashion TV shows like Project Runway. The fashionistas use it frequently.

WM

"Pant" it should be. When the late Marcel Marceau got dressed he did not do a pantsomime.

And here I was thinking that mime was always pants.

The OED Online says that pants originally was a shortened form of pantaloons and referred to them only. Later pants came too mean any type of trousers (and panties and pantalettes). Pant was a shortened form of pantleg, referring to one leg of a pantaloon (or pantaloons) and later of all trousers. Therefore, a pair of pants (often just pants) was a pantaloon (trousers).

I don't know when a pair of pants began to be called a pant, but I've noticed it more often in the last few years. But pant for pair of pants has been in use much longer than I thought, as evidenced by this ad from the Lewiston Evening Journal - Jul 11, 1903.

The oldest use I've found is from Southland Times (New Zealand), 25 February 1903: "Masters' pants at 6s 11d, a good strong saddle tweed pant, usually sold at 10s 6d."

I should not worry about the singular; worry about the singularity! http://singularity.com/