Philosophical question about women's lingerie

[Smurf]

Why is the word "Panties" plural but "Bra" singular?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Are you trying to pick up the slack while Saint's away?

 

[Smurf]

It's an honest question, I've been thinking about this for a very very long time. Don't mock me, mockery is immoral!

 

[Math Is Hard]

Don't mock me, mockery is immoral!

ha ha ha! oh, yes - I forgot!

 

[Artman]

Why is the word "Panties" plural but "Bra" singular?

Well, philosophically speaking, giggle, giggle giggle, he said "panties and bra," giggle, giggle giggle.
giggle, giggle giggle

 

[Smurf]

Giggling is immoral

 

[Math Is Hard]

oh dear! what's happened?

Smurf has turned into SAINT?

 

[the number 42]

I've been thinking about this for a very very long time.

Careful, you'll ruin your eyesight. Have you tried digging your fingernails into your palms? This sometimes helps.

 

[Moonbear]

oh dear! what's happened?

Smurf has turned into SAINT?

It must be a symbiont of some sort! When one user goes away, it infects a new host! Aaaaacckkkk!

 

[Artman]

oh dear! what's happened?

Smurf has turned into SAINT?

Did he have to perform three confirmed miracles to do that?

 

[Gokul43201]

Why is the word "Panties" plural but "Bra" singular?

Yeah, right !

Better luck walking up to a Templar Knight and asking his to kindly hand over the Grail thingy.

 

[Kerrie]

Well, my guess is because the word "brassiere" is to damn hard to say!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Over-the-shoulder-boulder-holder?

Panties <-- pants <-- pantaloons.

pantaloons
• plural noun 1 women’s baggy trousers gathered at the ankles. 2 historical men’s close-fitting breeches fastened below the calf or at the foot.

— ORIGIN from Pantalone, a character in Italian commedia dell’arte represented as a foolish old man wearing pantaloons.

Edit :Websters 1828 - PANTALOON', n.

1. A garment for males in which breeches and stockings are in a piece; a species of close long trowsers extending to the heels. /edit

In other words, I still don't know why it's plural.I had assumed that pants come with a right pant and a left pant.

 

[NeutronStar]

Why is the word "Panties" plural but "Bra" singular?

I always thought that $Bra$ was shorthand notation for $<Bra|ket>$ and you only need one $<Bra|ket>$ to describe the function in question: $<\bigodot|\bigodot >$.

You guys are going to get me kicked off this site for displaying my expertise in the field of $Graphic Functional Analysis$.

 

[Math Is Hard]

hey! there's a slide rule in the cleavage! I guess that's a handy place to carry it.

 

[Gokul43201]

hey! there's a slide rule in the cleavage! I guess that's a handy place to carry it.

Or they'd never let you get past the security check at the airport.

The last guy that tried to sneak a slide rule, a periodic table and a Russian manual (titled Atomik Urok) into an airplane was caught and shipped straight to Gitmo. It was several days before they eventually released Dmitri Mendeleev.

(kindly excuse the anachronism - 'Olga Lindeman' wouldn't have had the same effect)

 

[Math Is Hard]

If I tried to sneak my Hemmi on board, do you think I'd be 'busted' for possessing weapons of math instruction?

 

[NeutronStar]

hey! there's a slide rule in the cleavage! I guess that's a handy place to carry it.

Well there's always the informal cross-your-heart $(Bra)(ket)$ notation that will lift and separate your variables for added functional support: $(\bigodot )(\bigodot)$

I wasn't sure if I should include this informal graphical analysis option on a formal scientific site.

 

[mattmns]

This is a very akward question. First you need to restate the question, because it can easily be misinterpreted.

Do you mean why is the word panties plural and the word bra singular; as in, why does the english language put an s at the end of many(there are probably exceptions) words to show that it is plural?

This is not what I think you meant, but I am not sure.

Or did you mean this: Why do we say that a woman(or anyone) is wearing "panties" when she is clearly only wearing one pair of these "panties," so it should not be plural.

I would say it is just one of the many incorrect uses of the english language. Another could be that it just sounds better (but is this just because we have become accustomed to hearing it said this way?)

 

[Math Is Hard]

but fellas, aren't you wearing a 'pair' of underwear? same difference, right?

 

[mattmns]

Pair of pants too. But with Pair of Socks, hmm. Stupid English language

 

[Gokul43201]

Maybe before they had pants, people only wore socks. Slowly the socks evolved into a single unit, but the stupid cavemen didn't think carefully when they came up with 'pants' or 'pantaloons', or whatever.

 

[Gokul43201]

If I tried to sneak my Hemmi on board, do you think I'd be 'busted' for possessing weapons of math instruction?

Depends on how you handle it when the security guy peeks down your blouse and asks you :

"That thing got a hemmi ?"

 

[Math Is Hard]

Depends on how you handle it when the security guy peeks down your blouse and asks you :

"That thing got a hemmi ?"

If the TSA officer is cute, I just whisper in his ear, "I might have something illegal on me, but you're going to have to find it."

 

[philocrazy]

Ask your question again
and you get your plural

The Myth

 

[philocrazy]

As for singular
ask tits

Only Myth

 

[Math Is Hard]

Well there's always the informal cross-your-heart $(Bra)(ket)$ notation that will lift and separate your variables for added functional support: $(\bigodot )(\bigodot)$

I wasn't sure if I should include this informal graphical analysis option on a formal scientific site.

GOOD LORD! Those things are staring me! They look absolutely.. I dunno.. SURPRISED!

 

[Gokul43201]

[ itex](\bigodot )(\bigodot)[/itex ]

Now, if I ever have to go the the BMV (DMV) here, and I see the sign saying 'ODOT' (Ohio Dept of Transportation) in big letters, I'm not going to be able to get this picture out of my head.

Worry not Neutron, we are eternally grateful for info of such types.

 

[Evo]

Pair of pants too. But with Pair of Socks, hmm. Stupid English language

Merriam Webster says it's "panty" but is often used in the plural form "panties", so yes it is a word that has been misused to the point of being accepted.

Don't forget there are "pantaloons", "trousers" "briefs", "boxers". I guess if it's below the waist, it ends in an "s".

 

[Math Is Hard]

It's just too dang confusing for me. This is why I gave up wearing underwear in the first place!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I guess if it's below the waist, it ends in an "s".

Speak for yourself!

 

[Gokul43201]

Don't forget there are "pantaloons", "trousers" "briefs", "boxers". I guess if it's below the waist, it ends in an "s".

But for some inconceivable reason, it's 'pantyhose'

 

[Gokul43201]

Speak for yourself!

 

[Tsu]

It's just too dang confusing for me. This is why I gave up wearing underwear in the first place!

Good call, MIH! Bras especially need to be burned! The guy who invented them needs to have a scrotogram done with the mammogram machine!

 

[mattmns]

But for some inconceivable reason, it's 'pantyhose'

Hmm I always thought of pantyhose as two pieces, like socks, but according to my dictionary (webster) it refers to pantyhose as a one piece garment, and "consisting" of, I guess, two parts.
"Pantyhose: A woman's one-piece undergarment that consists of stockings and underpants."

edit... ok I did an image search on "pantyhose" and I guess they are one piece. *Continues to look at pictures: Has to go do something for five minutes*