I can understand why pants, with their bifurcated nature, are referred to as a pair of pants. But why do we refer to a pair of underwear, given that the only doublet is holes?
quote:Originally posted by wordnerd: I can understand why _pants,_ with their bifurcated nature, are referred to as a _pair_ of pants. But why do we refer to a _pair_ of underwear, given that the only doublet is holes?
Since "brassiere" comes from the French word meaning "arm," it would stand to reason that one would refer to them as a pair. After all, we Do say "a pair of arms," or "a pair of [bra contents]," so it's a goofy thing to have brassiere be in the singular. Maybe the inventor was a mammary gland cyclops or something.
Either is used. Bra is an abbreviation but like so many other abbreviations (phone, fax, bus, plane) have now been accepted as words in their own right.
The apostrophe that righfully belongs in 'bus and 'phone is usually absent.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
quote:The apostrophe that righfully belongs in 'bus and 'phone is usually absent
Usually? I have never seen an apostrophe in phone or bus (what is the real name?) or any of those words. My mother's generation used the word "brassiere", but it is almost never used anymore.
Both abbreviations have now become words in their own right although the OED still refers to them as abbreviations and it is thus still correct to use the apostrophe.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Oops, just lost my sanity for a moment. I do wonder if the actual German term, "brusthalter," - if mammary memory serves me well- might have given us the "halter top?" In any case, once again it's singular.