Why do we wear 'pairs' of underwear, when usually we only wear one garment?

Baloo55th

Like trousers, they have two legs. Yes, I know shirts do too, but trousers (knickers, pants, etc) were originally two garments - one for each leg. (Or three in the case of Jake the Peg's ancestors....) They retained their plural when they became joined at the top. Most undergarments apart from underskirts, shifts and so on have the two leg holes derived from the original trousers. Certain thongs may be more hole than garment, in fact, but the thong has a singular because the name refers to the exceedingly narrow part which supports the essential bit, comparing it with other thongs as in whips. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers I try to find references other than Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem easy to find the history of trousers and related garments elsewhere. Personally, Baloo tends to wear more than one garment, except when swimming. (Or in the bath...) Jan 24 08, 9:23 AM

markswood

I believe it is because undergarments were originally sold and worn as pairs, i.e., a vest and pants, or a top and bottom. However, that doesn't answer the next question of why you have a pair of trousers or pants (American). Possibly because there are two legs, the cloth being cut in symmetrical pairs and stiched together to form a single garment. Further, you have a pair of glasses or spectacles, okay they do have two lenses but there is only one complete item. Go figure... Jan 24 08, 9:29 AM

MonkeyOnALeash

It is English and it is peculiar like most of the phraseology we spout out of our mouths. No real rhyme or reason. Jan 25 08, 10:17 AM

queproblema

Queproblema tends to wear more than one garment at a time, too, but her shirts don't seem to have any legs at all.... Jan 26 08, 7:10 PM