# underwear (countable)



## Roymalika

1)


2)

3)

4)


They all are called underwear*s* (countable) here. In pictures 1, 2 and 3, the underwears shown are worn by men, while the ones in 4 are worn by women.

"I saw a man/woman on the beach. He/she was wearing *an* underwear." (I used the article "an" here because we use the word countably. _One underwear, two underwears, three underwears and so on.._.)
In picture 4 above, there are three underwears with different colours.

What do you call all of them in the UK and in the US, please?


----------



## Keith Bradford

In the UK these are *pants *for men and *panties *for women. They, plus bras, vests, slips, etc. all go in the non-countable category of _underwear_. The opposite is _outerwear _(shirts, pullovers, coats, etc.).

I think this question has been asked before - did you check?


----------



## Roymalika

Keith Bradford said:


> In the UK these are *pants *for men


But these ones are also pants:

How do you differentiate between these and the ones in the OP?


----------



## heypresto

We don't habitually use 'pants' in BE when we are referring to trousers. 

Some people use 'underpants' for the underwear.


----------



## Roymalika

heypresto said:


> We don't habitually use 'pants' in BE when we are referring to trousers.


You mean the two shown in post#3 are trousers?


----------



## heypresto

Yes.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Yes indeed, for most British speakers.

But some people, either as dialect or because they've watched too many American films, may call them _pants_. There are other dialect words too...

You can see the AE/BE differences if you use Google Books Ngram Viewer and then switch between the American and British options.

(Bear in mind that "pants" is also a plural noun meaning _short hasty breaths_.)


----------



## Edinburgher

Roymalika said:


> They all are called underwear*s* (countable) here.


But certainly not here.  In standard English, _underwear_ is a mass noun, i.e. uncountable.


----------



## PaulQ

Roymalika said:


> They all are called underwear*s* (countable) here.


Who told you that? I suspect that you might have taken the pictures from a website written by a non-native speaker.

It should be "They all are called underwear (*un*countable) here."

"*Underwears*" is, to all intents and purposes, wrong. I would advise you not to use "underwear" as a countable noun.

There is another word that is countable: *undergarment*. However, although this includes underwear, underwear differs as it is usually worn next to the skin, whereas an undergarment may also be worn beneath another garment, e.g. a waistcoat - beneath a jacket and above a shirt.

The pictures in your #3 are trousers in BE and pants in AE.


----------



## Roymalika

PaulQ said:


> I suspect that you might have taken the pictures from a website written by a non-native speaker.


Almost every person in my country call them "underwears". No one calls them "pants" or "underpants". But I wonder whether "pants" or "underpants" are equally commonly used names for them in the UK?


----------



## Keith Bradford

PaulQ said:


> Who told you that? I suspect that you might have taken the pictures from a website written by a non-native speaker.
> 
> It should be "They all are called underwear (*un*countable) here."
> 
> "*Underwears*" is, to all intents and purposes, wrong...


I agree with PaulQ; we are of course talking about British English, but the situation is much the same in the USA.  To be precise: _underwears _in the plural is found in one case in 1500 in American English, in one case in 3000 in Britain, compared with the singular. That is indeed "to all intents and purposes, wrong".


Roymalika said:


> Almost every person in my country call them "underwears"...


Well, it's long been established that Indian English is a different dialect, possibly as far from AE and BE as these are from each other.



Roymalika said:


> ...I wonder whether "pants" or "underpants" are equally commonly used names for them in the UK?


It's very hard to tell because the best way to count is by using a corpus search such as Ngrams but that shows only the overall frequency of a word, not its frequency with a given meaning.  The relative result is: Trousers 111, pants 96, underpants 7.  Even if we assume that only half of the "pants" results refer to underwear, *that would still make pants seven times more common than underpants.
*
Even applying ordinary common sense we might imagine that people prefer the shorter term "pants" to the longer one.  And certainly that's my observation.


----------



## Edinburgher

It does seem to be a feature of Indian English. Apparently pluralization in "non-native Englishes" of what in standard English are only mass nouns is very much a thing, and is widely discussed academically.

From here:
_Almost every study of individual  WE {World English} varieties in  Africa  and  Asia  reports  frequent  examples like *furnitures, equipments, staffs, fruits, accommodations*, and less  common  ones  like *offsprings, underwears, paraphenalias*, etc._


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Accomodations [sic] is the usual American term.


----------



## Roymalika

Can an AE speaker let me know whether the OP's things are also called pants in AE, please?


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Roymalika said:


> Can an AE speaker let me know whether the OP's things are also called pants in AE, please?


There don't seem to be many AE speakers around at the moment, but I'm fairly sure that they wouldn't refer to the underwear in the OP as 'pants'. In the US, pants are what you wear _over_ your underwear. For AE speakers, the outerwear in your #3 are 'pants', while the undergarments are 'underpants'.


----------



## Roxxxannne

AmE speaker here.  The items of clothing in the OP are underpants or underwear (not underwear*s). *#1-3 are men's underpants, and #4 shows three pairs of panties, or women's underpants.
Within the general term "underpants" are many specific terms for different cuts or styles. For men: boxers, Y-fronts, briefs, tighty-whiteys; for women: boy-leg, bikini, French cut, thong, etc.

EDITED: In reply to Wordy McWordface, #3 does not show outerwear.  That garment is too tight for ordinary outerwear, and the model's facial expression and stance are typical of photos of underwear models in American clothing catalogs and websites.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Roxxxannne said:


> EDITED: In reply to Wordy McWordface, #3 does not show outerwear.  That garment is too tight for ordinary outerwear, and the model's facial expression and stance are typical of photos of underwear models in American clothing catalogs and websites.


I do know the difference between underwear and outerwear!  

The third image in the OP that you're talking about is obviously underwear.

But when I said 'the outerwear in your #3', I was referring to the trousers shown in Roymalika's *Post #3, *also discussed by several people in posts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9.


View attachment 60855View attachment 60856


----------



## Roymalika

Please look at these pictures.
This is men's jeans:

This is women's jeans:


Are they also called trousers in BE and pants in AE?


----------



## JulianStuart

I would call them jeans, whether I was speaking BE or AE


----------



## sdgraham

Roymalika said:


> Are they also called trousers in BE and pants in AE?


No --- AND jeans *are* treated as a plural noun.


----------



## Roymalika

JulianStuart said:


> I would call them jeans, whether I was speaking BE or AE


Trousers (_pants_ = AE) are always loose, while jeans are always tight.
Is the distinction right? Or can trousers be tight and jeans be loose?


----------



## sdgraham

Do not assume that we do not use "trousers" in AE.

Jeans are made of *denim*.
WordReference Random House Learner's Dictionary of American English © 2021
den•im _/ˈdɛnəm/_  n.

Textiles[uncountable]a heavy fabric of cotton woven with white and blue threads, used esp. for jeans.


----------



## Myridon

Roymalika said:


> Please look at these pictures.
> *These are* men's jeans:
> 
> *These are* women's jeans:
> 
> Are they also called trousers in BE and pants in AE?



For me, they are both pants and jeans just as the first picture in the OP is both underwear and briefs.


----------



## Myridon

Roymalika said:


> while jeans are always tight.


Baggy jeans were very popular a few years back.  It was hard to find a pair that didn't make me feel like I was inside a tent instead of wearing clothes.


----------



## Roymalika

Myridon said:


> Baggy jeans were very popular a few years back.  It was hard to find a pair that didn't make me feel like I was inside a tent instead of wearing clothes.


You mean nowadays jeans are always tight?


----------



## JulianStuart

Roymalika said:


> You mean nowadays jeans are always tight?


No.  I have some that are not "tight" but are not as baggy as the trend Myridon mentioned.


----------



## Roymalika

JulianStuart said:


> No.  I have some that are not "tight" but are not as baggy as the trend Myridon mentioned.


Trousers (BE) in post#3 and jeans can both be loose or tight. So why have a different name? Is that due to the difference of material from which these two are made?


----------



## JulianStuart

Jeans get their name from the fabric.



> Collins Concise English Dictionary © HarperCollins Publishers::
> 
> *jean*/dʒiːn/n  a tough twill-weave cotton fabric used for hard-wearing trousers, overalls, etc


----------



## Keith Bradford

Jeans seem to have a few specific features

They are made of denim
They have visible double-stitched seams
They have heavy-duty notions (zip, rivets, metal buttons, etc.)
If they don't have these, they're trousers (BE) but the categories overlap.


----------



## Myridon

Keith Bradford said:


> Jeans seem to have a few specific features
> 
> They are made of denim
> They have visible double-stitched seams
> They have heavy-duty notions (zip, rivets, metal buttons, etc.)
> If they don't have these, they're trousers (BE) but the categories overlap.


Add to that, they have patch pockets in the back and slash pockets in the front.

But...


Keith Bradford said:


> but the categories overlap.


There are now many jeans not made of denim, many jeans with different pockets, many jeans with no rivets, etc.  Just as in your other thread about dresses, there are no REQUIREMENTS, there is just a general pattern.  I know "jeans" when I see them, but I can't always tell you why.


----------



## S1m0n

Roymalika said:


> Can an AE speaker let me know whether the OP's things are also called pants in AE, please?


No. Those are underwear (uncountable) in AmE. Pants are trousers. We have heard and understand the term 'underpants', but it is not often used. Women's underwear are 'panties'.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Wordy McWordface said:


> I do know the difference between underwear and outerwear!
> 
> The third image in the OP that you're talking about is obviously underwear.
> 
> But when I said 'the outerwear in your #3', I was referring to the trousers shown in Roymalika's *Post #3, *also discussed by several people in posts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9.
> 
> 
> View attachment 60855View attachment 60856


Sorry about that!  I misunderstood.


----------



## Roxxxannne

S1m0n said:


> No. Those are underwear (uncountable) in AmE. Pants are trousers. We have heard and understand the term 'underpants', but it is not often used. Women's underwear are 'panties'.


To me "panties" is a word from my mother's generation (she would be 107 were she alive today). I call those women's garments "underwear" or "underpants."


----------



## JulianStuart

Roymalika said:


> So why have a different name?


Because there are many different types.


----------



## dojibear

Originally "jeans" were a kind of rugged men's work trousers, sewed in San Francisco during the Gold Rush, around 1850. For a long time, only one company (Levi Strauss & Co) made them. In 1960, I could only get one brand. Eventually some other companies made similar products. They are called "jeans" and "blue jeans" and "levis".

One source says that "jean" fabric come from the French term "jean fustian" (a fabric from Genoa).




Roymalika said:


> Trousers (_pants_ = AE) are always loose, while jeans are always tight.
> Is the distinction right? Or can trousers be tight and jeans be loose?


The "always" is not accurate in AE. In AE, ankle-to-waist outerwear is called "pants" or "trousers". So jeans/levis are a kind of trousers. Jeans are casual, while the loose style (see pictures) is worn in semi-formal and formal outfits.

Some people use the term "trousers" for that loose, creased style of UK/US pants (and not for jeans).


----------



## S1m0n

Roxxxannne said:


> To me "panties" is a word from my mother's generation (she would be 107 were she alive today). I call those women's garments "underwear" or "underpants."


The n-gram has it peaking in 2015
Google Books Ngram Viewer


----------



## heypresto

I suppose you could say (in BE) that jeans are trousers, but trousers are not necessarily jeans. 

Similarly, Oxford bags, slacks, flares and loons (or loon pants) are all trousers, but trousers are not necessarily Oxford bags, slacks, flares or loons


----------



## Wordy McWordface

S1m0n said:


> The n-gram has it peaking in 2015
> Google Books Ngram Viewer


...which happened to be the year that this came out:


----------



## JulianStuart

heypresto said:


> I suppose you could say (in BE) that jeans are trousers, but trousers are not necessarily jeans.
> 
> Similarly, Oxford bags, slacks, flares and loons (or loon pants) are all trousers, but trousers are not necessarily Oxford bags, slacks, flares or loons


Yup - trousers is a broad category, like "dress" is a broad category.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Wordy McWordface said:


> ...which happened to be the year that this came out:
> 
> View attachment 60895


'Panties' does seem to have become an erotically charged word, to judge from a quick perusal of books published in 2015 and later.  I suspect that the now-deceased women who thought of their everyday, boring 1950s white cotton underpants with elastic waistbands as 'panties' would be surprised.  ("For pity's sake! Panties from Woolworth's are sexy?  Good heavens!")

I note that on jockey.com, women's so-called panties are classified first as 'underwear' and then by nine subcategories.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Re blue jeans, jeans, etc., there is also the uncommon word 'dungarees,' from "Hindi _dungri_ 'coarse calico'" according to _Online Etymology Dictionary._


----------



## JulianStuart

Roxxxannne said:


> Re blue jeans, jeans, etc., there is also the uncommon word 'dungarees,' from "Hindi _dungri_ 'coarse calico'" according to _Online Etymology Dictionary._


I grew up with dungarees (in the UK)  Wiki says


> Overalls, also called bib-and-brace overalls or dungarees, are a type of garment usually used as protective clothing when working. The garments are commonly referred to as a "pair of overalls" by analogy with "pair of trousers"


And the Ngrams have similar patterns in the US and GB databases. I associate them with "rugged" clothing for children playing outdoors, rather than in general as "overalls". A garage mechanic would wear overalls while a child might wear the same design, but smaller, and called dungarees.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Re dungarees and growing up, same here (in the US).


----------



## S1m0n

I know the term 'dungarees', but only from literary and/or historical sources. I'd never use it in speech.


----------



## dojibear

I grew up with "dungarees", which seems to have peaked around 1953 but is still used today:

Google Books Ngram Viewer

But "dungarees" was never was as common as "jeans", "pants" or "trousers" (AE):

Google Books Ngram Viewer


----------



## S1m0n

I wonder if 'dungarees' is a regionalism.


----------



## dojibear

According to this website, "dungaree" started as a course cotton cloth worn by sailors. It started in India in the 1600s, and comes from the Hindi "Dungri", a town name.

"Dungaree" meaning "trousers made of dungaree" started in 1868. So the word is 150 years old.

dungaree | Origin and meaning of dungaree by Online Etymology Dictionary

According to another website (The History of Dungarees), the "bib and trousers" overalls made of this fabric (and called "dungarees") started with Levi Strauss. The website says:

_"This new form of clothing was ideal for hard labour and with the bib, it allowed the carrying of tools and eliminated the need for waist belts. They grew in such popularity across America that they soon became the standard clothing for the working man. They were even colour coded according to the profession of the wearer: hickory stripe for railroad workers, white for painters and different shades of blue for the rest of the working class. 

The dungaree started to transcend the realms of manual labour when they were worn by Hollywood royalty, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and even Judy Garland, turning the overall into a desirable garment. "_

So no, it wasn't a regionalism.


----------



## Au101

I definitely think of dungarees as having an upper part with straps that go over the shoulders, but perhaps that's just my utter ignorance of dressmaking.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the term 'knickers' which is certainly what we called women's underwear in my house. 'Panties' to me (perhaps wrongly, I don't know) sounds like an American import. I could only use it self-consciously.


----------



## dojibear

I've heard "knickers" many times from British comedians.


----------



## S1m0n

dojibear said:


> So no, it wasn't a regionalism.


I'm pretty sure that 'dungarees' hasn't been current English in Canada since the 50s.
Here, the farmer's garment with a bib and shoulder straps is 'overalls' (plural), and a boiler-maker's suit with sleeves is a coverall (singular).


----------



## JulianStuart

Au101 said:


> I definitely think of dungarees as having an upper part with straps that go over the shoulders, but perhaps that's just my utter ignorance of dressmaking.


For me, they aren't dungarees if they don't have the upper part.


----------



## Au101

S1m0n said:


> I'm pretty sure that 'dungarees' hasn't been current English in Canada since the 50s.
> Here, the farmer's garment with a bib and shoulder straps is 'overalls' (plural), and a boiler-maker's suit with sleeves is a coverall (singular).



Yes, funnily enough, I probably wouldn't use the term for worker's clothing - I'd probably prefer overalls - but for casual clothing, as worn by Matilda

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dww5BanU0AIiSxk?format=jpg&name=large


----------



## heypresto

dojibear said:


> I've heard "knickers" many times from British comedians.


Yep, knickers is a good, sturdy, maybe slightly old-fashioned, word for panties.


----------



## Roxxxannne

S1m0n said:


> I'm pretty sure that 'dungarees' hasn't been current English in Canada since the 50s.
> Here, the farmer's garment with a bib and shoulder straps is 'overalls' (plural), and a boiler-maker's suit with sleeves is a coverall (singular).


I grew up in the 50s, close to Canada (though the other side from BC), and I doubt it's been current in New England and elsewhere in the US since then.  But it's a pretty nifty word.
And I agree with your overalls (aka 'bib overalls') and coverall definitions.


----------



## Roxxxannne

In case BrE speakers think that _all_ English linguistic influence follows the prevailing westerlies, I would point out that Americans do occasionally say "Don't get your knickers in a twist."


----------



## Roymalika

I have two more questions please,
- The pants in the OP are tight. What about the ones that are loose, like these:


Are they also pants in BE and underpants in AE?

- I've heard the name "nickers" for these loose pants here. Is the name used in BE and in AE too?


----------



## heypresto

In BE, these are 'boxer shorts ' or just 'boxers.' They are a type of pants.



Roymalika said:


> I've heard the name "nickers" for these loose pants here. Is the name used in BE


No. And note the spelling: '*k*nickers.'


----------



## Roymalika

heypresto said:


> No. And note the spelling: '*k*nickers


What are 'knickers" then in BE? The same as the ones in the OP?


----------



## heypresto

Picture #4 are knickers. See my post #53.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Roymalika said:


> I have two more questions please,
> - The pants in the OP are tight. What about the ones that are loose, like these:
> View attachment 60908View attachment 60909
> Are they also pants in BE and underpants in AE?
> 
> - I've heard the name "nickers" for these loose pants here. Is the name used in BE and in AE too?



Pants/underpants: Yes.
Those are underpants. If we wanted to specify the the style, we'd call them boxers. Boxers,  briefs, y-fronts etc are all different styles of underpants.

Knickers: No!
In BE, knickers are women's undergarments. Never men's.
In AE, knickers aren't underwear at all. They're a knee-length outer garment.


----------



## Roymalika

heypresto said:


> Picture #4 are knickers. See my post #53.


Okay, thanks.
How are boxer shorts in #56 different from the pants (picture 1-3) in the OP? 
- pants are tight while boxer shorts are loose 
- pants are worn in normal circumstances while boxer shorts are worn in sports like boxing etc.
Is that why they are different?


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Roymalika said:


> Okay, thanks.
> How are boxer shorts in #56 different from the pants (picture 1-3) in the OP?
> - pants are tight while boxer shorts are loose
> - pants are worn in normal circumstances while boxer shorts are worn in sports like boxing etc.
> Is that why they are different?


_-pants are tight while boxer shorts are loose_
No. 'Pants' is the general BE term.  Any type of men's undergarment worn under trousers can be called 'pants' ( or 'underpants').  There are many different styles of pants, some tight (e.g. briefs) and some loose (e.g. boxers).

_- pants are worn in normal circumstances while boxer shorts are worn in sports like boxing etc._
No.  This has nothing to do with sports. We're talking about underwear here: 'boxers' and 'boxer shorts' are simply a term used to describe a style of loose-fitting underpants.


----------



## heypresto

Boxers are a type of pants. They are loose. They resemble the shorts worn by boxers.

They are worn as underwear by millions of men, (including me), not by boxers in the ring.


----------



## london calling

S1m0n said:


> I wonder if 'dungarees' is a regionalism.


Regional? It's been used all over the UK for years and I see I'm convinced all Brits know what dungarees are. They come back into fashion periodically. 😊

That said, I notice that online now they often call them 'salopette'. 


dojibear said:


> I've heard "knickers" many times from British comedians.


We use it all the time, but only for ladies' panties.


----------



## bearded

Concerning women's ''panties'', I find it strange that so far nobody mentioned the term _undies_. Is it obsolete?


----------



## london calling

bearded said:


> Concerning women's ''panties'', I find it strange that so far nobody mentioned the term _undies_. Is it obsolete?


No, it isn't. I know quite a few people who still use it. 😊


----------



## Wordy McWordface

bearded said:


> Concerning women's ''panties'', I find it strange that so far nobody mentioned the term _undies_. Is it obsolete?


This has already been discussed:
underwear vs. undies

Here's what I said about 'undies':

For me, 'undies' is an informal and rather twee 'girly' alternative to the uncountable 'underwear' e.g. _I'm not ready to go out yet! I'm still in my undies.  _ [bra and "panties"]

It is still used, but not always seriously.


----------



## bearded

Wordy McWordface said:


> This has already been discussed:
> underwear vs. undies


Thank you for your reply. That thread had escaped my attention.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

bearded said:


> Concerning women's ''panties'', I find it strange that so far nobody mentioned the term _undies_. Is it obsolete?


And also concerning women's "panties".....

I've never come across a British woman who used the word 'panties'.  To my British ear, the diminutive sounds twee and (if said by a man) ever so slightly creepy.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

'Knickers' is often used seriously by women for women's lower body under garments. Some of the names have class and other associations. I won't say what I think of the word 'panties' except that it makes me feel nauseated. They're what gets stolen from washing lines.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Hermione Golightly said:


> 'Knickers' is often used seriously by women for women's lower body under garments. Some of the names have class and other associations. I won't say what I think of the word 'panties' except that it makes me feel nauseated. They're what gets stolen from washing lines.


Exactly. Nauseated. That's why I couldn't bring myself to write the word without inverted commas.


----------



## zaffy

And what word do children or parents use? Say a 3-4 year old child is getting dressed by themeselves, shows their mum three pairs of underpants and asks her which ones to put on.

A: Mummy, which ______ do I wear today?
B: It doesn't matter, pick the ones you like most.


----------



## london calling

I think we've already covered all the words in current usage. Try re-reading the thread. 😉


----------



## Roymalika

zaffy said:


> And what word do children or parents use? Say a 3-4 year old child is getting dressed by themeselves, shows their mum three pairs of underpants and asks her which ones to put on.
> 
> A: Mummy, which ______ do I wear today?
> B: It doesn't matter, pick the ones you like most.
> 
> 
> View attachment 60911


These are the same as the ones in picture#4 in the OP. _Panties or knickers._
As they're for a baby, they would be called baby's panties or knickers.


----------



## london calling

Roymalika said:


> These are the same as the ones in picture#4 in the OP. _Panties or knickers._
> As they're for a baby, they would be called baby's panties or knickers.


They're for a toddler, not a baby. And as was said above 'panties' isn't used much these days.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

You mean perhaps, Zaffy, which colour shall I wear today.


----------



## Roymalika

london calling said:


> And as was said above 'panties' isn't used much these days.


"Nickers" is used commonly these days instead of "panties", right?


----------



## S1m0n

Roymalika said:


> "Nickers" is used commonly these days instead of "panties", right?


In the UK, I gather. Not so in Canada, and I suspect the USA.


----------



## heypresto

Roymalika said:


> "Nickers" is used commonly these days instead of "panties", right?


Yes, but please note (again) the spelling: *k*nickers.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Roymalika said:


> "Nickers" is used commonly these days instead of "panties", right?


In Britain. Yes.

"Knickers", written with a silent* k* at the beginning, is the standard, everyday term used in the Britain for women's and girls' lower body underwear. We don't use 'underpants' to refer to women's underwear in BE and (as I said in #70), we don't tend to say 'panties'.

Note that 'knickers' is not used with this meaning in North America. See my post #60.


----------



## PonderosaPine

Edinburgher said:


> But certainly not here.  In standard English, _underwear_ is a mass noun, i.e. uncountable.


Also in the U.S., or at least the 5 or 6 regions in which I've lived.

I wear my underwear every day and have a good selection of underwear in my underwear drawer.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Roymalika, I hope you've got the message now -  amid all this chat about other matters - that the word 'underwear' is* not countable* and that 'underwears' is incorrect in standard English.

Yes, you'll find examples of  'underwears' all over the internet. But remember that the internet is full of terrible English. Just because a word or phrase appears next to the picture of a product on an Alibaba ad doesn't mean that it's correct!


----------



## Wordy McWordface

PonderosaPine said:


> Also in the U.S., or at least the 5 or 6 regions in which I've lived.
> 
> I wear my underwear every day and have a good selection of underwear in my underwear drawer.


And do you say 'pair of underwear'?


----------



## Edinburgher

Wordy McWordface said:


> And do you say 'pair of underwear'?


I don't think so.
_It's time to make up my mind.  Which pair of underwear will I put on today? 
There was a three-drawer cabinet.  One drawer was full of socks, the other two contained about three dozen pairs of underwear.   
_
The trouble, even with the second example, is that not all items of underwear come in pairs.  Socks, tights, underpants, and knickers do, but undershirts, underskirts, and even bras don't.  All of these are underwear, and we don't generally use "underwear" specifically to mean underpants/knickers/panties, because of all the other articles that fall into the same category.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Wordy McWordface said:


> In Britain....we don't tend to say 'panties'.


Google Books Ngram Viewer says you're wrong.

I think this interminable thread has proved one thing: WordReference contributors have an incorrigible habit of thinking their own personal preferences (_nauseated_ indeed!) are generalised across the nation, and don't look for the facts.


----------



## Roxxxannne

And we just like to chat about undergarments.


----------



## PonderosaPine

Wordy McWordface said:


> And do you say 'pair of underwear'?


No, I probably would not, but I might.  I'd more likely say, "a pair of underpants" or a "pair of trousers," or a "pair of pants." Underwear is more of a category (to me), a rubric for all things undergarments. It could include other undergarments, but seems mostly to be underpants, panties, or in the UK, knickers and pants.  

{Someone mentioned it's trousers in the UK and pants in the US, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't know trousers were pants, anywhere in the US.  It's just too darn hard to say that extra syllable, so it's lazy-pants for us colonials.}


----------



## Roymalika

Keith Bradford said:


> Google Books Ngram Viewer says you're wrong.
> 
> I think this interminable thread has proved one thing: WordReference contributors have an incorrigible habit of thinking their own personal preferences (_nauseated_ indeed!) are generalised across the nation, and don't look for the facts.


May I ask what you'd personally use? Knickers, panties, briefs or underpants?


----------



## cidertree

Roxxxannne said:


> And we just like to chat about undergarments.



I think you mean _witter on_ about undergarments.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Roymalika said:


> May I ask what you'd personally use? Knickers, panties, briefs or underpants?


I personally wear frilly knickers, but I only speak for about 6% of the male population, so don't base your vocabulary on mine.  My wife and I talk about the contents of our respective "sock drawers, knicker drawers, underwear drawers..."*  I don't think we talk to other people about these much - we are British after all! In a shop we'd ask for the "underwear department" and find our own way from there.

* (Not our "drawers drawers"  . )


----------



## heypresto

Ah yes, 'drawers'. We very nearly got to a hundred posts without mentioning them.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

"Drawers drawers"


----------



## london calling

Roxxxannne said:


> And we just like to chat about undergarments.


Knickers! 😂


----------



## london calling

Keith Bradford said:


> Google Books Ngram Viewer says you're wrong.
> 
> I think this interminable thread has proved one thing: WordReference contributors have an incorrigible habit of thinking their own personal preferences (_nauseated_ indeed!) are generalised across the nation, and don't look for the facts.


I associate it with Jethro Tull's tramp Aqualung, who watches 'as the frilly panties run' (a reference to little girls😳).

And Ngram only takes into account the written word...


----------



## Roymalika

Keith Bradford said:


> "sock drawers, knicker drawers, underwear drawers..


These are quite new terms to me. Could you let me know what they are, please? Perhaps some images?


----------



## JulianStuart

A drawer is a part of some pieces of furniture - it slides in and out and is where things like socks, knickers, etc can be stored.
This is a drawer in a "chest of drawers" in which someone has stored small towels.


----------



## london calling

Bloomers. 🤣


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Keith Bradford said:


> Google Books Ngram Viewer says you're wrong.
> 
> I think this interminable thread has proved one thing: WordReference contributors have an incorrigible habit of thinking their own personal preferences (_nauseated_ indeed!) are generalised across the nation, and don't look for the facts.


I think the clue here is the word *Books. * Those figures reflect the world of Mills and Boon. And just look at the enormous spike created by Shades of Grey effect in 2015! Google Books ngrams are a poor reflection of everyday and spoken usage:

A better indication of what people really say is the Marks and Spencers website:
Knickers | M&S
Here more specific terms are briefs and thongs, while the superordinate term is 'knickers' throughout.  Not a_ single_ reference to 'panties'.

Do any of the female BrE speakers in this forum actually refer to their underwear as 'panties'?


----------



## sdgraham

Let us not forget the time-honored U.S. Navy/Maine Corp *skivvies*.   

SKIVVIES | YankReenactment


----------



## Cagey

It's true that people like to chat about underwear, but this thread is now closed. 

People who are interested in any individual term should look at our dictionary's definition of that term.  The 'images' link under the search box on the definition page will show you what they look like.  You should also consult previous threads. 

Cagey,
moderator


----------

