# Philosophical question about women's lingerie

1. Dec 21, 2004

### Smurf

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

2. Dec 21, 2004

### Math Is Hard

Staff Emeritus
Are you trying to pick up the slack while Saint's away? :rofl:

3. Dec 21, 2004

### 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!

4. Dec 21, 2004

### Math Is Hard

Staff Emeritus
ha ha ha!! oh, yes - I forgot!!! :rofl:

5. Dec 21, 2004

### Artman

Well, philosophically speaking, giggle, giggle giggle, he said "panties and bra," giggle, giggle giggle.
:tongue2: giggle, giggle giggle

6. Dec 21, 2004

### Smurf

Giggling is immoral

7. Dec 21, 2004

### Math Is Hard

Staff Emeritus
oh dear! what's happened?

Smurf has turned into SAINT??????

8. Dec 21, 2004

### the number 42

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

9. Dec 21, 2004

### Moonbear

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

10. Dec 21, 2004

### Artman

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

11. Dec 21, 2004

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Yeah, right !

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

12. Dec 21, 2004

### Kerrie

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

13. Dec 21, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
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.

Last edited: Dec 21, 2004
14. Dec 21, 2004

### NeutronStar

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 $Graphic Functional Analysis$.

15. Dec 21, 2004

### Math Is Hard

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

16. Dec 21, 2004

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
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)

17. Dec 21, 2004

### Math Is Hard

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

18. Dec 21, 2004

### NeutronStar

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.

19. Dec 21, 2004

### 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?)

20. Dec 21, 2004

### Math Is Hard

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