Sinister: linguistic trainspotting

[susannah]

on 08 Mar 98, Amy Golden wrote...

>Say, since this list has already tackled spawny gits & the bar vs. 
>biscuit conundrum, I was hoping someone could take a crack at the 
>significance of 'pants.'  Clearly, it is undesirable to be deemed pants, 
>but why? To Americans pants are just, I guess you'd say, 'trousers.'  
>Surely there are more disagreeable items of apparel to be compared to:  
>jock strap, thong, adult diaper... Please explain.

Indeed. Pants in the U.K. are undies, and a rather lowly form at that, since
high-class undies are either knickers for girls or boxers for boys.
Pants really are the sort of sexless things your Mum buys you, at least thats
what they imply when you say 'Pants!'
As an insult, something is 'Pants!'  if you think it really is crap,  e.g.
Ocean colour Scene are Pants!

Conversely, 'Trousers' is a compliment of the highest order and thus should be
used sparingly.
If something is 'trousers' it generally is of fantastic taste, humour, style and
good looks.

Saturn shag anon
xxx

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.     This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list.
.        To send to the list please mail "sinister at majordomo.net".
.  For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see
.            http://www.majordomo.net/sinister
. For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister at majordomo.net
.    We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes.  Aren't we?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------