 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009BrE: Pants
Hello: 1. Is "pants" here BrE for "underpants/underwear?" 2. "Trousers rucked up" is it "creased and slid up on the leg" or "went in a heap, higher on the leg" ? ---- Members moved unobtrusively from the floor to a chair, and Quiggin, on of the legs of whose trousers had rucked up, revealing long hirsute pants of grey material, pulled the end of his trouser down towards a black sock and sat more upright on the sofa. A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 128 ----  SignatureThanks. Marius Hancu > Hello: > 1. Is "pants" here BrE for "underpants/underwear?" Yup! With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Attending Anesthesiologist) Now happily retired. Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk >> Hello: > >> 1. Is "pants" here BrE for "underpants/underwear?" > >Yup! On our first trip to England we visited with some friends near Cambridge. One day my wife, myself, our little daughter, our friends and their children when out to eat. I accidnetlly spilled some gravy on myself and as I tried to blot it up with a napkin (oops, make that a serviette) and despite knowing better, I commented "I've spilt some gravy on my pants." Great laughter ensued from our friends' children. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> Hello: >>> 1. Is "pants" here BrE for "underpants/underwear?" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > commented "I've spilt some gravy on my pants." Great laughter > ensued from our friends' children. No, make it a napkin. SignatureDavid in a Hilton >On our first trip to England we visited with some friends near >Cambridge. One day my wife, myself, our little daughter, our [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >commented "I've spilt some gravy on my pants." Great laughter >ensued from our friends' children. Napkin used to be U, and serviette non-U. Are you a social abseiler? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >Hello: > >1. Is "pants" here BrE for "underpants/underwear?" Yes, underpants. >2. "Trousers rucked up" >is it >"creased and slid up on the leg" >or >"went in a heap, higher on the leg" >? Something like that! A "ruck" is: A crease, fold, or wrinkle; a ridge. [OED] The verb, derived from the noun, means: 1. intr. To slip up or work into creases or ridges; to become creased or wrinkled. 2. trans. To crease; to wrinkle or cause to work up into ridges. >---- >Members moved unobtrusively from the floor to a chair, and Quiggin, on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 128 >---- SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On May 11, 6:39 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >1. Is "pants" here BrE for "underpants/underwear?" > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > >A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 128 Thank you both. Marius Hancu >Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 128 >---- Underpants, yes, but you'd have to ruck up trousers a long way to show them, even with baggy trousers and underpants. Quiggin was probably wearing "Long Johns", that reach down almost to the ankles. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >them, even with baggy trousers and underpants. Quiggin was probably >wearing "Long Johns", that reach down almost to the ankles. But, for the record, it IS unusual for BrE "pants" to refer to "underpants". While that is all it can refer to in the context given, "pants" is normally "trousers". SignatureIan >>>Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >"underpants". While that is all it can refer to in the context given, >"pants" is normally "trousers". I beg to differ. That is, I'm sure you're right for some circles and for some age-groups, but I'm equally sure there's a hefty chunk of the BrE-speaking population which hears "pants" and thinks underpants (or knickers, or briefs, or panties, or Y-fronts, or boxers, or whatever). SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>>Hello: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >BrE-speaking population which hears "pants" and thinks underpants (or >knickers, or briefs, or panties, or Y-fronts, or boxers, or whatever). Maybe it's a generation thing. 'When I were a lad', I wore short pants. Later, when 12 or 13, I graduated to long pants. No reference whatever to undergarments. SignatureIan >>>>>Hello: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Later, when 12 or 13, I graduated to long pants. No reference whatever >to undergarments. I reckon it is. The transition from short trousers to long trousers took place on entry to secondary school (after the eleven-plus) in my generation. "Pants" are underwear. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England Robin Bignall wrote... >> Wood Avens writes >>>> Robin Bignall writes >>>>>>1. Is "pants" here BrE for "underpants/underwear?" >>>>>Underpants, yes, >>>>But, for the record, it IS unusual for BrE "pants" to refer to >>>>"underpants". While that is all it can refer to in the context [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>thinks underpants (or knickers, or briefs, or panties, or >>>Y-fronts, or boxers, or whatever). [*] I concur in your dissent. In my little world (which started in Lincolnshire in the 1940s), pants = underpants. The first time I was invited to a reception at the American Embassy, I had to ask what the dress was. "Coat and pants", they said. When I further asked if I should in that case also bring a Mars Bar, the only reaction was incomprehension. >>Maybe it's a generation thing. 'When I were a lad', I wore short >>pants. Later, when 12 or 13, I graduated to long pants. No [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > eleven-plus) in my > generation. "Pants" are underwear. At my school, we were first allowed to wear long trousers at and after confirmation (in UIV, aged c. 14). [*] Apart from these largely commercial synonyms for underpants, some sub-cultures seem to have invented their own terms for underpants. 'Shreddies' and 'kecks' come to mind, but I can't quite remember which particular sub-culture they belong to - bits of the military, perhaps? [Later] OED gives 'shreddies' as slang originating in the Royal Marines, with the first example dated 1989. I knew the term probably 20 years earlier. I gave up on following OED's etymology of kecks, which Partridge ascribes to Liverpudlian < kicks, presumably short for kicksies < kick n.2, 2, bewilderingly 'The projection on the tang of a pocket knife blade, which prevents the edge of the blade from striking the spring.' Perhaps they meant to refer to kick n.1, 6a, where the trail runs cold. SignatureNoel >[*] Apart from these largely commercial synonyms for underpants, >some sub-cultures seem to have invented their own terms for >underpants. 'Shreddies' and 'kecks' come to mind, but I can't quite >remember which particular sub-culture they belong to - bits of the >military, perhaps? When I lived in Manchester (1960s) 'kecks' were trousers. COED: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/kecks?view=uk kecks plural noun Brit. informal trousers. ORIGIN phonetic respelling of obsolete kicks. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in <00gl05t9t8gkb9ob45gup3lbclj0496kja@4ax.com> on Wed, 13 May 2009 13:43:07 +0100: > >[*] Apart from these largely commercial synonyms for underpants, > >some sub-cultures seem to have invented their own terms for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > plural noun Brit. informal trousers. > ORIGIN phonetic respelling of obsolete kicks. I wonder is "strides" still used for trousers in OZ as it was among the Australians I knew in the early 1950s. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE > Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in > <00gl05t9t8gkb9ob45gup3lbclj0496kja@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I wonder is "strides" still used for trousers in OZ as it was among the > Australians I knew in the early 1950s. I used to live in the country where older forms are retained longer and "strides" or "daks" were the usual words. Now I live in the city, I don't hear either much, but I don't think they're dead yet. SignatureRob Bannister >> I wonder is "strides" still used for trousers in OZ as it was among the >> Australians I knew in the early 1950s. > > I used to live in the country where older forms are retained longer and > "strides" or "daks" were the usual words. Now I live in the city, I > don't hear either much, but I don't think they're dead yet. However, Holeproof still sell Underdaks. The brand is well-known and advertised. Holeproof aimed this ad at those who buy underwear (I don't beleive the ad was banned, just replaced by Pat Rafter. Pity): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km6tGDlYsew N >> I wonder is "strides" still used for trousers in OZ as it was among >> the Australians I knew in the early 1950s. > > I used to live in the country where older forms are retained longer > and "strides" or "daks" were the usual words. Now I live in the city, > I don't hear either much, but I don't think they're dead yet. "Strides" and "Daks" were both brand names, but I'm not sure whether that was before or after they were colloquialisms. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>> I wonder is "strides" still used for trousers in OZ as it was among >>> the Australians I knew in the early 1950s. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >"Strides" and "Daks" were both brand names, but I'm not sure whether >that was before or after they were colloquialisms. It seems to me that I had a pair of Daks years ago. Trousers with no belt - just a tab in front - but some sort of devices inside the waist to adjust the waist size. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> I wonder is "strides" still used for trousers in OZ as it was among >>> the Australians I knew in the early 1950s. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Strides" and "Daks" were both brand names, but I'm not sure whether > that was before or after they were colloquialisms. I hadn't realised that "Strides" was also a brand name. I think "Daks" or at least "Underdaks" has now been lost along with "Bonds" and a whole host of other Aussie brands. SignatureRob Bannister On 12 May, 21:04, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message <4mkj05pjd7lsq0tschk5fnm3f2o2v02...@4ax.com>, Wood Avens > <woodav...@askjennison.com> writes [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Later, when 12 or 13, I graduated to long pants. No reference whatever > to undergarments. This sounds to me (b 1954) totally AmE, and not at all BrE. BrE outer garments = trousers; pants = underwear. Always. I do nowadays (partly in jest) tend to refer to my undergarments as "knickers", but this may be due to the fact that I live in an otherwise all-female household. Mike M In message <fe8d40f8-f61b-4fc5-9e31-106885e4ab32@v17g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Mike Mooney <mikmooney@googlemail.com> writes >On 12 May, 21:04, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >BrE outer garments = trousers; pants = underwear. Always. That's odd. I'm from 10 years earlier, and (as I said) pants alone would not normally be 'underpants'. In fact, I'm not sure that we usually referred to short trousers as 'trousers'. This term seems more applicable to long trousers. But we definitely had 'short pants' and 'long pants'. Maybe it's a NE England thing. >I do nowadays (partly in jest) tend to refer to my undergarments as >"knickers", but this may be due to the fact that I live in an >otherwise all-female household. In the circumstances, I'm sure it's an easy mistake to make. SignatureIan > In message > <fe8d40f8-f61b-4fc5-9e31-106885e4ab32@v17g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > Mike Mooney <mikmooney@googlemail.com> writes [...] >> BrE outer garments = trousers; pants = underwear. Always. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > applicable to long trousers. But we definitely had 'short pants' and > 'long pants'. Maybe it's a NE England thing. More a Victorian (period, not place) thing, I think. That would explain why "pants" still means "trousers" in AmE and AusE. It's short for "pantaloons", of course. Some Victorians found it amusing to pretend they needed euphemisms for "trousers": you also find "trews", "nether garments", and "hum-hums", for example. >> I do nowadays (partly in jest) tend to refer to my undergarments as >> "knickers", but this may be due to the fact that I live in an >> otherwise all-female household. >> > In the circumstances, I'm sure it's an easy mistake to make. When in need of a jocular word for masculine sub-ubi, we tend to call them "pan'ies" pronounced with an American flap. SignatureMike. In alt.usage.english, Mike Lyle wrote: >Some Victorians found it amusing to pretend they needed euphemisms for >"trousers": you also find "trews", "nether garments", and "hum-hums", >for example. Not to mention "unmentionables". SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >>But, for the record, it IS unusual for BrE "pants" to refer to >>"underpants". While that is all it can refer to in the context given, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >BrE-speaking population which hears "pants" and thinks underpants (or >knickers, or briefs, or panties, or Y-fronts, or boxers, or whatever). Of course, to an American of a certain age "nickers" would be short for "knickerbockers", a form of short trouser for boys which reached just below the knee and had either elastic or a buckle to draw the trouser leg tight to the wearer's leg. Long stockings were usually worn covering the lower leg from the knickers down. Knickers were common wear for boys before they graduated to long trousers, as can be evidenced by any number of American movies made before about 1940. Unfortunately for me, I got a lot of my clothes as hand-me-downs from my mother's best friend who had a son a few years older. I may have been the last boy in my hometown to wear knickers to school c. 1943. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > I may have been the last boy in my hometown to wear knickers to > school c. 1943. In the spring of 1963, when my parents got a letter from Alleyns School, Dulwich, London SE22 which told them I had a place that September, a list of things to be bought for me was enclosed. One was a grey flannel "knicker suit". > On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:14:45 +0100, Ian Jackson > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > BrE-speaking population which hears "pants" and thinks underpants (or > knickers, or briefs, or panties, or Y-fronts, or boxers, or whatever). I agree. The only usage that doesn't mean underpants was back in the seventies when they had 'pant-suits' and these always sounded rude - or like something you'd find in a Red Indian sweat-lodge. In alt.usage.english, Ian Jackson wrote: >>>Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >"underpants". While that is all it can refer to in the context given, >"pants" is normally "trousers". Not for me - when I say "pants" I mean underpants, never ever trousers. Though I don't think I'd call long underpants "pants" - they're "long johns". Then there's "pant", a term used by some retailers for trousers, that really makes me wince. I don't think I could bring myself to buy a "pant". SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >In alt.usage.english, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >really makes me wince. I don't think I could bring myself to buy a >"pant". Some people must: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z61e1Hv6gIQ&feature=related> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9MJMOMufY&feature=related> SignatureIan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.