Pants
What’s up with the words used to define the articles of clothing in which we encase our legs?
Since the 1200s, English speakers have referred to a bifurcated garment worn by men covering from the waist to the knees, as breeches. This word most likely came from a Proto-Indo European word that meant to break, fork, or split. By 1905 in America, breeches became britches..
The word pants came from the word pantaloons, which originally meant a kind of tights, & has been a part of English since the 1660s. About 1798, the word pantaloons started meaning long trousers. By the 1840s, pantaloons got truncated to become pants.
Since 1763 English-speaking folks have worn leggings, originally an extra outer covering to protect the legs.
Trousers started out in English as trouzes in the 1580s (a men’s garment covering the lower body & each leg separately). It seems the second -r got added to pattern trousers after the word drawers.
And the word slacks was born in the military about 1824. It referred to loose trousers. Its parent Old English word meant sluggish, indolent or lacking energy. We still find this branch of meaning in the idiom take up some slack & the word slacker.
Tights were originally tight fitting breeches & have been with us since 1827.
And here are some related idioms:
1835 — too big for one’s breeches/britches, first put on paper by Davy Crocket in reference to Andrew Jackson.
1904 — slacker
1931 — to wear the pants in a family
1932 — to be caught with one’s pants down
1942 — by the seat of one’s pants
1968 — cut someone some slack
1975 — slack key guitar
So, fellow pant-wearers (& non-pant-wearers), does all that resonate with you? Anything surprising?
My thanks go out to this week’s sources: phrases.org, Merriam Webster, Collins Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, & Etymonline.
OKIE-DOKIE, PAHOKEE. (YOU'D HAVE TO BE FROM FLORIDA TO KNOW THAT REFERENCE.) WHAT PASSES ME BY ABOUT YOUR PANTS-POST IS THE REASON FOR THE PLURAL ON ALL THESE PANTS SYNONYMS. SURE, WE (THEY) HAVE TWO LEGS, BUT THE ONLY TIME YOU SEE THEM (IT) SPLIT AND SEPARATE IS WHEN THEY (IT) COME(S) IN THE FORM OF WESTERN (OR ARGENTINIAN) CHAPS, WHICH ARE WORN OVER JEAN(S). (UNLESS YOU'RE SOME KINDA ALTERNATIVE SORT, WHICH IS OK BY ME, ALTHOUGH. . . OH, FORGET IT.) THIS IS STARTING TO SOUND LIKE A HEIDEGGERIAN CUM FAULKNERIAN AND/OR QUASI-JOYCEIAN RANT, SO I'M GOING TO END IT RIGHT HERE AND WISH YOU AND YOUR READERSHIP JUST A SWELL EVENING.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, thanks!
DeleteI did not know that "slacks" were actually related to the word "slack" as in "slacker."
ReplyDeleteIn the UK, "pants" means underwear, and the outer garment is always called "trousers." "Pants" is also a slang word meaning "rubbish" as in, "don't read his book: it's pants." This may be a shortened version of "a pile of pants" as in "a pile of unwashed underwear."
Ha! A pal of mine has "verb-ized" the word pants. When someone dresses distinctively he'll say, "You're really pantsing it!"
DeleteWhat I noticed was that all of the definitions referred only to "men's" this or that, of course. I am sure they never dreamed at the time that women would someday wear pants or trousers.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. We live in a boy-centric world. The good news is, many signs are suggesting this is changing.
Delete