Jeffrey Rowland's OVERCOMPENSATING
topatoco

20 June 2006

A Pant



I used to be really serious about this issue, about the plurality of pants. But I've finally grown to accept it. People have been doing this for ages, back when called it "pantaloons." But you know what? Those people back then were even stupider than we are today. We're a bunch of war-mongering zombies but at least those people were classy about it. It's one item. When you go to the mall and buy a pant, it says QTY: 1 on your receipt.

I have new shirt designs for you to drape over your mangled busoms. Make people believe you honestly give a crap about the situation with these!

what the hell is the matter with people

14 Comments:

Blogger jvs said...

Chris Gaines is a pant?

20/6/06 01:24  
Blogger theresa said...

Wouldn't Baby be saying 'trousers' anyway? Or ..... trouser?

20/6/06 02:12  
Blogger Wolf said...

You need to get yourself a copy of the OED, mon chum. That, or get The Englishman to look up the etymology of "pants" for you.

20/6/06 03:33  
Blogger Serena said...

well if what nathan said is correct about the pluralization of "pants," when where does the term "panties" come from and why is my underwear pluralilzed?

20/6/06 13:29  
Blogger Nermy said...

Just cut a pair of pants in half with a pair of scissors; problem solved.

20/6/06 14:30  
Blogger Hojo said...

In German, "Hose" means a single pair of pants. Multiple pairs of pants are "Hosen." You see, Jeffrey, the Germans agree with your cause.

20/6/06 15:55  
Blogger Jordyn Nolz said...

So if you look up "pants" in the American Heritage College Dictionary, it's not there. "Pant" however is, and it's secondary definition (the first is the verb) is: "n. 1. Trousers. Often used in the plural. 2. Underpants. Often used in the plural."

There's two entries for "pantaloon," one is capitalized. The first refers to the trousers, the second refers to a stock character in pantomime, who was often the butt of the joke.

Take that to mean whatever you want.

20/6/06 17:20  
Blogger Blog-na said...

This exact issue alway greatly confused me...

-End If Kris

20/6/06 19:24  
Blogger Blog-na said...

One pant to rule them all,
one pant to find them
one pant to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

20/6/06 20:04  
Blogger Jehu Campos said...

is that a knife, and gun, and A NUNCHUCK?!?!?!? I see THREE items on that shirt...

20/6/06 21:10  
Blogger DarkJesus said...

Silly Jeffrey. Put on your pant, then your other pant, then hurry to the doctor!

20/6/06 21:30  
Blogger Filch said...

I thought about this while eating a bowl of rices and reading a new in the paper, and I have to say I agree heartedly.

21/6/06 01:20  
Blogger Hasphat said...

Cause he's bat-shit insane.

22/6/06 16:33  
Blogger K/c-(h)-r-i/y-s-t-a said...

You don't want to see a single pant.

I was working at hot topic during the single month we stocked men's pants. And by "pants" i mean many many articles of clothing that, in the singular, were pant.

it was a big, long skirt. Men wore them. They had dangly bits. I bought one. I call it a skirt, rightly so.

23/6/06 02:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home