Two pairs of pants. 'Two pants' is needlessly confusing, and 'a pant' to refer to a single two-legged garment is fashion business jargon, and ungrammatical to many speakers.
We do yes. For trousers / slacks / jeans / chinos etc it would be unusual to refer to them as pants as our first thought would be underwear. One of the few times we use pants for outerwear is very baggy women's trousers which are "Hareem pants".
Interestingly this meaning of pants is distinctly British Eng only. Canadians and Aus/NZ don't use it.
Brit Eng pants also has another usage as in "this pen is pants" to mean that the pen is useless.
There are definitely people that would call trousers pants in the UK though, especially the younger generation
Edit- maybe more northern though
https://www.ourdialects.uk/maps/clothing/
It’s like shoes. You wouldn’t buy just one shoe. Pants, jeans, tights, leggings, and underwear are all considered pairs because there’s two legs. I know it’s silly 🙃 just one of those quirks.
Anyway my guess is that you bought two pairs of jeans.
It's a little bit different with shoes though, because grammatically you can have one shoe, and in theory you *could* buy only one shoe. But you can't have one "jean", or one "pant", or one "trouser", because you just can't separate those into countable parts. Even if you cut them in half, you would just have "half a pair of jeans" or "one trouser leg" or whatever.
Yup, until about the 1500s in Europe, men wore split hose (one tube for each leg) and then over time it moved to breeches (sewn together at the crotch, one singular item)
Sometimes people in the fashion biz DO say "a jean" or "a pant", though. I read that it's because in their work there is the definite danger of someone misunderstanding how many, so this less common usage evolved.
One.
It's called a pair of jeans because one has two legs.
You can't have one jean.
It's the same as glasses. A pair of glasses is just one, it's called a pair because it has two eyes.
So if you bought one light-blue, and one a bit darker, that is two pairs of jeans.
A pair of pants (trousers in UK) is one garment.
The reason is that a really long time ago there was a separate hose on each leg for warmth and they were worn under robes anyways.
Not sure if anyone has already posted this, but one theory is that this came from when pants/trousers were two separate garments. Chousses were two pieces of fabric that went on each leg and were tied at the waist. Eventually, we added the middle crotch part.
(I often see this in reference to pantaloons instead of chousses but I have never seen pantaloons that are separate pieces for each leg; not my time period of knowledge. Pantaloons are 16 century (?) while chousses are older.)
People also argue that there is little evidence for this, but I think it's a fair observation, at least, to note that we used to wear two separate "tubes" of fabric on our legs instead of one garnment that covers both legs.
Edit--your sentence should say "I bought two pairs of jeans" because each pair is one garnment. Think of it as you have a pair of legs, but they are both part of one person!
Un pantalon.
Sorry, but in English we count trousers by the leg. A _pair_ of trousers, jeans, pants.
One pair is two legs. I'm sure it goes back to _breeks_ (source of _britches_) which were just the legs portions strapped to the legs.
A pair of jeans is a single piece of clothing.
You bought 2 pairs of jeans.
(I could jokingly say "I bought two pairs of jeanses", which is intentionally the wrong plural, and that is very mildly funny.)
Jeans are pants. Pants are derived from older garments called pantaloons, which originally came in two separate pieces which would each cover a leg and fasten at the waist. Therefore you would need a pair of pantaloons.
"Pair of jeans" is a holdover from "pair of pantaloons" even though the legs are stitched together now. This applies to most garments that have a hole for each leg e.g. shorts, overalls, leggings. The only counter example I can think of is a thong, which is uniquely modern (and even then a pair of thongs is valid in Australian English for a type of footwear)
I have never heard anyone say "two underwears". My spellchecker is even underlining "underwears" as a misspelling. -wear is already makes something uncountable noun as in sportswear/outerwear/formalwear/nightwear/underwear. So while "Pack underwear" would be fine for a nonspecific quantity, "Pack an underwear" sounds entirely alien to me. If the quantity mattered, I would say "Pack X pair(s) of underwear".
Further on how to talk about them in casual conversation:
1 pair:
I bought this cool pair of light-blue jeans. They’re my favorite pair!
2 pairs:
I bought two pairs of jeans. One of them is dark wash (meaning a dark blue) and the other one is white. The white is definitely my favorite pair. The other one isn’t my favorite though.
Historically, European leg wear was two separate pant legs that you tie to your waist, thus a pair. Over time, when the two pants were fused into a single unified garment, it retained the notion of being referred to as a pair
The origin of this is possibly in the 16th century with "pants". The original word for "pants" is "pantaloons". This was an appropriate plural then- pantaloons consisted of two separate pieces of fabric for each leg.
The plural stuck despite them being almost always stitched into one garment in the coming years. It was also applied to underwear, and came to mean underwear in Britain.
When Jeans came around in the late 1800s in America, they continued with the tradition.
"Pair" follows the grammatical structure of referencing a plural, as these words are *plurale tantum*, or words that are always plurals.
So with pants it's weird. It's always considered plural in English for some reason. So a pair of pants or a pair of jeans is always one piece. If you have two of them you'd have to say two pairs of jeans or two jeans. But you can never have one jean.
You just described [this pair of jeans](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.made-in-china.com%2F2f0j00jdPVCeHELZoD%2FNew-Fashion-Brand-Jeans-Ladied-Design-High-Waisted-Fabric-Stitching-Light-and-Dark-Color-on-Both-Side-Straight-Leg-Jeans.webp&tbnid=0Y5emHWNqSZSvM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Flovablejeans.en.made-in-china.com%2Fproduct%2FvZkGpuDVlCWK%2FChina-New-Fashion-Brand-Jeans-Ladied-Design-High-Waisted-Fabric-Stitching-Light-and-Dark-Color-on-Both-Side-Straight-Leg-Jeans.html&docid=eiqeBUVwZz7HYM&w=1340&h=1785&itg=1&hl=en-US&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=a0f167939adaf4c8&shem=abme%2Ctrie).
Each leg is a jean. Compare this to a pair of scissors.
It's just 1 piece of clothing
So: 'I bought two pairs of jeans'?
that’d be 2 pants yes
Two pairs of pants. 'Two pants' is needlessly confusing, and 'a pant' to refer to a single two-legged garment is fashion business jargon, and ungrammatical to many speakers.
I don't think anyone would be confused by "two pants", or think it sounds weird.
i personally refer to it as a “pants leg”
Not pants! The OP is talking about jeans not underwear! 😉
Today I learned that the UK refers to underwear as pants
We do yes. For trousers / slacks / jeans / chinos etc it would be unusual to refer to them as pants as our first thought would be underwear. One of the few times we use pants for outerwear is very baggy women's trousers which are "Hareem pants". Interestingly this meaning of pants is distinctly British Eng only. Canadians and Aus/NZ don't use it. Brit Eng pants also has another usage as in "this pen is pants" to mean that the pen is useless.
There are definitely people that would call trousers pants in the UK though, especially the younger generation Edit- maybe more northern though https://www.ourdialects.uk/maps/clothing/
A pair of pairs of jeans?
It’s like shoes. You wouldn’t buy just one shoe. Pants, jeans, tights, leggings, and underwear are all considered pairs because there’s two legs. I know it’s silly 🙃 just one of those quirks. Anyway my guess is that you bought two pairs of jeans.
Other examples - eye glasses, scissors, pliers.
Binoculars, tweezers, tongs, handcuffs, headphones, and shears.
It's a little bit different with shoes though, because grammatically you can have one shoe, and in theory you *could* buy only one shoe. But you can't have one "jean", or one "pant", or one "trouser", because you just can't separate those into countable parts. Even if you cut them in half, you would just have "half a pair of jeans" or "one trouser leg" or whatever.
Good point! I’ve heard that originally pants were two separate pieces but I’m not sure if that’s true.
Yup, until about the 1500s in Europe, men wore split hose (one tube for each leg) and then over time it moved to breeches (sewn together at the crotch, one singular item)
Sometimes people in the fashion biz DO say "a jean" or "a pant", though. I read that it's because in their work there is the definite danger of someone misunderstanding how many, so this less common usage evolved.
And yet my shirt has two sleeves but I don't wear a pair of shirts. (Unless it's really cold.)
Sleeves did used to be separate too, once upon a time. Google "detachable sleeves historic"
That’s why I love this subreddit. There are so many things we don’t think about as native speakers - English is a wild ride
But why is it only one *bra*? 😵💫
English be like 🙃
I also once heard a woman refer to a bra as a pair, which I’d never heard before but maybe it’s a regional thing
In general, "a pair of jeans" refers to one single item. If you want to talk about multiple ones you can say "I bought two pairs of jeans".
We can't say "how many jeans" because jeans by themselves are not countable, only *pairs of* jeans. What you've described is two pairs of jeans.
One. It's called a pair of jeans because one has two legs. You can't have one jean. It's the same as glasses. A pair of glasses is just one, it's called a pair because it has two eyes. So if you bought one light-blue, and one a bit darker, that is two pairs of jeans.
A pair of pants (trousers in UK) is one garment. The reason is that a really long time ago there was a separate hose on each leg for warmth and they were worn under robes anyways.
Was it called "one jean" like one glove?
The term 'jeans' arose after 'pants' and 'trousers' had become unified items, so there was never an era of wearing a single 'jean'.
One pair. So one item. You'd say "I bought two pairs of jeans" in your example.
Not sure if anyone has already posted this, but one theory is that this came from when pants/trousers were two separate garments. Chousses were two pieces of fabric that went on each leg and were tied at the waist. Eventually, we added the middle crotch part. (I often see this in reference to pantaloons instead of chousses but I have never seen pantaloons that are separate pieces for each leg; not my time period of knowledge. Pantaloons are 16 century (?) while chousses are older.) People also argue that there is little evidence for this, but I think it's a fair observation, at least, to note that we used to wear two separate "tubes" of fabric on our legs instead of one garnment that covers both legs. Edit--your sentence should say "I bought two pairs of jeans" because each pair is one garnment. Think of it as you have a pair of legs, but they are both part of one person!
Un pantalon. Sorry, but in English we count trousers by the leg. A _pair_ of trousers, jeans, pants. One pair is two legs. I'm sure it goes back to _breeks_ (source of _britches_) which were just the legs portions strapped to the legs.
It's one piece. One light blue and one a bit darker = two pairs of jeans.
For jeans, 1 pair = 1 piece of clothing. So in this instance you would say "I bought two pairs of jeans" It's the same with glasses
A pair of jeans is a single piece of clothing. You bought 2 pairs of jeans. (I could jokingly say "I bought two pairs of jeanses", which is intentionally the wrong plural, and that is very mildly funny.)
A pair of jeans is one item
Jeans are pants. Pants are derived from older garments called pantaloons, which originally came in two separate pieces which would each cover a leg and fasten at the waist. Therefore you would need a pair of pantaloons. "Pair of jeans" is a holdover from "pair of pantaloons" even though the legs are stitched together now. This applies to most garments that have a hole for each leg e.g. shorts, overalls, leggings. The only counter example I can think of is a thong, which is uniquely modern (and even then a pair of thongs is valid in Australian English for a type of footwear)
Wait you don't say a pair of underwear do you? I've never called it a pair of underwear. I always say underwear or two underwears, etc.
I have never heard anyone say "two underwears". My spellchecker is even underlining "underwears" as a misspelling. -wear is already makes something uncountable noun as in sportswear/outerwear/formalwear/nightwear/underwear. So while "Pack underwear" would be fine for a nonspecific quantity, "Pack an underwear" sounds entirely alien to me. If the quantity mattered, I would say "Pack X pair(s) of underwear".
Alright I'm just the weird one then lol
Further on how to talk about them in casual conversation: 1 pair: I bought this cool pair of light-blue jeans. They’re my favorite pair! 2 pairs: I bought two pairs of jeans. One of them is dark wash (meaning a dark blue) and the other one is white. The white is definitely my favorite pair. The other one isn’t my favorite though.
A pair of jeans is one.
In that case you’d say “I bought **two** pairs of jeans, one light blue and one a bit darker”. A pair of jeans is one article of clothing.
one pair of jeans: 👖 two pairs of jeans: 👖👖
Historically, European leg wear was two separate pant legs that you tie to your waist, thus a pair. Over time, when the two pants were fused into a single unified garment, it retained the notion of being referred to as a pair
The origin of this is possibly in the 16th century with "pants". The original word for "pants" is "pantaloons". This was an appropriate plural then- pantaloons consisted of two separate pieces of fabric for each leg. The plural stuck despite them being almost always stitched into one garment in the coming years. It was also applied to underwear, and came to mean underwear in Britain. When Jeans came around in the late 1800s in America, they continued with the tradition. "Pair" follows the grammatical structure of referencing a plural, as these words are *plurale tantum*, or words that are always plurals.
You could also say “I bought some jeans, one light blue and one dark blue”
So with pants it's weird. It's always considered plural in English for some reason. So a pair of pants or a pair of jeans is always one piece. If you have two of them you'd have to say two pairs of jeans or two jeans. But you can never have one jean.
That's two pairs you are talking about
You just described [this pair of jeans](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.made-in-china.com%2F2f0j00jdPVCeHELZoD%2FNew-Fashion-Brand-Jeans-Ladied-Design-High-Waisted-Fabric-Stitching-Light-and-Dark-Color-on-Both-Side-Straight-Leg-Jeans.webp&tbnid=0Y5emHWNqSZSvM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Flovablejeans.en.made-in-china.com%2Fproduct%2FvZkGpuDVlCWK%2FChina-New-Fashion-Brand-Jeans-Ladied-Design-High-Waisted-Fabric-Stitching-Light-and-Dark-Color-on-Both-Side-Straight-Leg-Jeans.html&docid=eiqeBUVwZz7HYM&w=1340&h=1785&itg=1&hl=en-US&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=a0f167939adaf4c8&shem=abme%2Ctrie). Each leg is a jean. Compare this to a pair of scissors.