Alright - I now know

[polmaven]

that I obviously have waaaayyy too much time on my hands, but here goes.

Why is it, do you suppose, that we wear a "pair" of pants? It is only one garment. The first reaction to the question, when I ask, is that there are two legs. But think about it. There are two arms in a shirt, aren't there? and it is not call a "pair" of shirts.........! Not a joke...a semi-serious question. No one so far has had a good answer.

:hi:

[frogmarch]

1. Maybe this is why:

(snip)

According to Michael Quinoin at World Wide Words, pants are a pair because, "before the days of modern tailoring, such garments, whether underwear or outerwear, were indeed made in two parts, one for each leg. The pieces were put on each leg separately and then wrapped and tied or belted at the waist (just like cowboys’ chaps). The plural usage persisted out of habit even after the garments had become physically one piece. However, a shirt was a single piece of cloth, so it was always singular."

http://walkinthewords.blogspot.com/2009/05/phrase-etymology-pair-of-pants.html

[rrneck]

2. There y'see. Now I'm learning. Thanks. nt

[polmaven]

3. Well, there you go!

Always come to DU when you need an answer to a silly question! Thank you! :hi:

[Gidney N Cloyd]

OK, now why do folks say they're going to have "a beer"when they know damn well they'll have 3 or 4?

[MiddleFingerMom]

5. My kneejerk reaction was, "because you can only drink one at a time"...

.
.
.
... but I think we all know that ain't necessarily so.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(If I could find this woman, I think I'd propose. After
all, how many times in your life do you think you'll
find someone who knows the proper way to enjoy a
half-&-half?)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

[MiddleFingerMom]

4. Maybe it's just your spelling that's the problem.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

[polmaven]

6. You've got a point!

That may be a way to look at it.