January 08, 2010, 08:20
BobHaleSingular!
From the very same shop that brought you
this, today another window-sized poster.
Nike Woven Pant
Half Price
Maximum two per customerI've never seen a singular pant but, as it's less than the maximum, I'm tempted to go in and ask for one.
January 08, 2010, 08:36
zmježd pantMaybe the shop is hot. No, according to the news it should be cool.
January 08, 2010, 21:54
KallehI've seen
pant, with the meaning of trousers, in the singular. Here is an
example.January 09, 2010, 11:08
wordmaticI've heard it too, on fashion TV shows like Project Runway. The fashionistas use it frequently.
WM
January 09, 2010, 12:14
Geoff"Pant" it should be. When the late Marcel Marceau got dressed he did not do a pantsomime.
January 09, 2010, 14:02
BobHaleAnd here I was thinking that mime was always pants.
January 09, 2010, 16:31
tinmanThe 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."
January 09, 2010, 19:00
GeoffI should not worry about the singular; worry about the singularity!
http://singularity.com/