[See the most interesting for PDML finging on this questions a bit further in the text.]
Apparently, when I looked up "binocular" at M-W.com, I didn't notice that for the second meaning, they mention that it is used in the plural form. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/binocular?show=1 OED has the same. (BTW, AFAIK, OED is focused more on British English, - hence, "binocle" seems to be more British than American. "Binocle" appears to come from French, while "binocular" originates as short for "binocular glass") So, I stand corrected about usage of "binoculars" for a single object. I still dislike "pair of binoculars" being used for just one object. If I were a sales person, and a customer would order that way, I would sell two! > Similar usage as "a pair of pants." The binoculars have two oculars, > pants have two legs. > > stan "bi-" already stands for two. You don't say "a pair of bicycles" for just one bike, even though there are two (mono-)cycles in each. Joseph: it would be "people's brains" ;-) Steven wrote: > No, that would be "a couple of pairs of binoculars". I am personally > holding out for "multiple binoculi". > ;-) Steven, binoculi is plural for binoculus... :-) And now, - the most interesting on the subject of this word for PDMLers: >From OED: "1935 Discovery Nov. 330/2 We were busy watching the parties of cormorant through the binoculars." !!!!!!!! Bob: you are correct. Yes, "pantaloons" originates from the Italian comedy character, Venetian Pantaleone, who was wearing long and wide pants. This word propagated to various European languages: pantaloni (Italian) pantalons (German), pantalones (Spanish), pantaloons (English) I learned this some 3 years ago when I was investigating the origin of these "pairs of ...". (And OED suggests "pantaloons" as the contemporary spelling. M-W - gives this and "Pantalone" for the character, but seems to suggest only the former one for the breeches.) Here is what OED said then about ethymology of this word (I am copying from my 2008 notes, it may have changed since that): (OED online, Draft Revision, Mar. 2008): Pantaloon [< French pantalon the character Pantaloon (1583-4 as Panthalon), person who changes his behaviour, opinions, etc., out of self-interest (1651), a comically hypocritical character (1679), costume of Pantaloon (1585 as pantaleon), close-fitting garment going from the neck or shoulders to the feet with straight legs (1628), type of (1650), long trousers (1790; also 1797 denoting a woman's undergarment) and its etymon Italian pantalone the Venetian character Pantaloon (1561 or earlier), so called from the frequency of Pantalone as a male forename among Venetians, which was in turn after the name of San Pantaleone or San Pantalone, the patron saint of the city (from at least the 10th cent.). Cf. Italian pantaloni trousers (1799; < French).] Igor > From s...@trantor.komkon.org Sun Apr 17 14:19:31 2011 > Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:19:30 -0400 (EDT) > From: Igor Roshchin <s...@komkon.org> > To: PDML@pdml.net > Subject: "Pair of binoculars" (Was: OT: Possible enablement - Pentax > binoculars?) > > > > "A pair of binoculars" - is this two binoculars or just one _binocular_? > ;-) > > > My ears/eyes are irritated even when people use "pair of ..." with the > nouns which are usually not used in a singular form (at least in the > contemporary language), such as "pants" ("pantaloons"), "trousers", > "shorts", etc, while talking about a single object. > At least, in that situation, it is based on the "etymology" of the > object itself, as AFAIK, first, pants were not sewed together.[*] > ... And that usage is considered acceptable. > > > But one optical device in question is called a binocular, not binoculars! > (Binocular is a pair of monoculars or telescopes.) > > So, people who own just one binocular [#] and talk about > _their_ "pair of binoculars" are half-similar to me bragging about > _my_ "pair of 645D's" (as I have none). > :-) > > > ------ > [*] I spent some time investigating this question, and found that this > usage and word etymology is very similar in many languages from the > Indo-European family, including English, French, Russian and several > other slavic languages. And, in particular, it extrapolated on the > objects that never had separate parts, such as "shorts" (aka "short > pants"). > > [#] Unlike e.g. Bob S. who owns two binoculars. > > > Igor > > PS. This reminded me of a question I wanted to ask some time ago. > Question for Italian speakers (Dario?): I wonder if "pair of 'pantaloni'" > ("accoppiamento dei pantaloni"[?] - or whatever it is) is a common > expression in Italian? > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
