# Pantyhose, singular or plural?



## High on grammar

Hello everyone:
 I came across the following sentence in “Do You Speak American?” by Robert MacNeil and William Cran: 

“*Pantyhose are* so expensive anymore that I just try to get a good suntan and forget about *it*”.



Of course according to the book, the only part of the sentence that is considered ungrammatical by 70 percent of Californians is the use of “anymore” to mean “nowadays”. But I believe the sentence contains a second mistake, which is the It at the end of the sentence. It should be changed to “them”; because in Standard English “pantyhose” is always plural. 

*Pantyhose* *are* so expensive anymore that I just try to get a good suntan and forget about *them*.

Am I right?

Thanks


----------



## suzi br

It might not refer to the pantyhose. It could be the whole business of how to cover your legs, which she has solved by getting a tan and not needing to bother about the expense.


----------



## High on grammar

suzi br said:


> It might not refer to the pantyhose. It could be the whole business of how to cover your legs, which she has solved by getting a tan and not needing to bother about the expense.



Still, she is referring to "pantyhose" which is plural.


----------



## Copyright

*It *can refer to the unnamed situation -- making your legs look good -- as suzi has suggested, and with which I agree.


----------



## suzi br

High on grammar said:


> Still, she is referring to "pantyhose" which is plural.



You have not understood my point.  It refers to the situation not the tights themselves.  there is nothing wrong with the original sentence.


----------



## High on grammar

suzi br said:


> You have not understood my point.  It refers to the situation not the tights themselves.  there is nothing wrong with the original sentence.



Thank you guys.


----------



## Parla

If the reference is to the situation, "it" is correct.

If the reference is to the pantyhose, "them" is the correct word. My initial impression was that a reference to the pantyhose was intended. But my impression may be wrong.


----------



## High on grammar

Parla said:


> If the reference is to the situation, "it" is correct.
> 
> If the reference is to the pantyhose, "them" is the correct word. My initial impression was that a reference to the pantyhose was intended. But my impression may be wrong.



Thanks


----------



## bennymix

I agree with Parla. 'pantyhose' the word, acts like 'trousers';  it's a plural in grammar, but single (with two parts or 'legs,' in fact)-- that's to my limited understanding!


----------



## High on grammar

bennymix said:


> I agree with Parla. 'pantyhose' the word, acts like 'trousers';  it's a plural in grammar, but single (with two parts or 'legs,' in fact)-- that's to my limited understanding!



Thanks


----------



## rightnow

[Threads merged at this point.  DonnyB - moderator]
The Wiktionary entries indicate that *hose* is _uncountable_ (for _2. A stocking-like garment worn on the legs; pantyhose_) while _pantyhose_ or its synonym _tights_ are "plural only".

Yet, Collins Concise English Dictionary shows both "_hose, hosen_" as the plural forms of _hose_.

According to Microsoft® Encarta® 2009, _(panty)hose_ is a plural noun itself as is _tights_ or _oats _and unlike, say, "_sheep_ (plural _sheep_)" or _hose_ in its meaning of "flexible tube", which shows the usual plural _hoses_.

Currently all this information is at odds, so I need a clarification.


----------



## Ponyprof

rightnow said:


> The Wiktionary entries indicate that *hose* is _uncountable_ (for _2. A stocking-like garment worn on the legs; pantyhose_) while _pantyhose_ or its synonym _tights_ are "plural only".
> 
> Yet, Collins Concise English Dictionary shows both "_hose, hosen_" as the plural forms of _hose_.
> 
> According to Microsoft® Encarta® 2009, _(panty)hose_ is a plural noun itself as is _tights_ or _oats _and unlike, say, "_sheep_ (plural _sheep_)" or _hose_ in its meaning of "flexible tube", which shows the usual plural _hoses_.
> 
> Currently all this information is at odds, so I need a clarification.



I can't imagine anyone saying hosen after about 1300 AD. Who writes these dictionaries? Oh except in the German lederhosen!

We do not typically use the noun hose for stockings today in English except for pantyhose, support hose, and the hosiery department in large stores. Everything else is socks, stockings, tights. Panty hose is a non countable plural noun.

We do use the noun hose for the garden implement, and that has devolved verb forms and obviously plural forms.

I'm hosing off the car.

I hosed down the driveway.

I'm draining all the hoses at the barn tonight before it freezes.

[Topic drift removed.  DonnyB - moderator]


----------



## natkretep

Well, we still talk about the kilt hose (usually for men). I'd use the plural _hose _here (not _hosen_).


----------



## Andygc

All that information is not at odds. You have linked to the Wordreference dictionary. The definition from WordReference Random House Unabridged Dictionary of American English marks "hosen" as archaic. The definition from Collins Concise Dictionary does not. That illustrates the difference between a concise dictionary and a detailed dictionary. Both entries are correct, but one contains more information.

There's also nothing "at odds" over pantyhose being uncountable and plural only. In normal usage we don't say "three pantyhose" any more than we say "three trousers" or "three scissors", but all three words are grammatically plural: "pantyhose *are* worn by women", "trousers *keep* legs warm", "scissors *are* sharp".


----------



## tunaafi

bennymix said:


> 'pantyhose' the word, acts like 'trousers';  it's a plural in grammar, but single (with two parts or 'legs,' in fact)-- that's to my limited understanding!


This is clearly correct, as confirmed by several dictionaries, and members in this current thread.
However, as a speaker of BrE who never uses the word (I use _tights_, clearly plural), this sounds strange to me, and _Pantyhose are_ grates on my ear. Unlike other 'pair' words _trouser*s*, pant*s*, tight*s*, scissor*s*_, etc -  _pantyhose_ looks singular to my British eye.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Dictionaries don't know whether you are reading Chaucer ("Hir hosen weeren of fyn Scarlet reed." _Canterbury Tales, Prologue_, c.1405) or Dan Brown (who probably never uses "hose" at all), but if you encounter an unfamiliar word in either, you should be able to look up its meaning. Very few dictionaries indicate what is current usage.

OED shows that the plural "hosen" was reasonably common well into Modern English, with the most recent quotation from 1882. It marks it as "_archaic_ or _dialect_".

Elsewhere in in the OED entry, "hose" (singular), referring to the clothing, is marked as "_Obsolete_", with the most recent quote from 1682, suggesting it never really made it into Modern English, but it seems common enough in Middle English. The collective plural use of "hose" is still current. "A pair of hose" is listed with no obsolete or archaic marker, but there are no modern quotes to support its use.


----------



## Andygc

Uncle Jack said:


> but there are no modern quotes to support its use.


If you do as natkretep did, and Google "kilt hose" you'll find dozens, if not hundreds, of modern examples.


----------



## Uncle Jack

OED says
Originally and chiefly _North American_.​​*With plural agreement.* Women's thin, usually nylon tights.​[My bold]


----------



## london calling

Copyright said:


> *It *can refer to the unnamed situation -- making your legs look good -- as suzi has suggested, and with which I agree.


I also agree. 

"Forget about it!" is a common collocation.


----------



## Andygc

tunaafi said:


> _pantyhose_ looks singular to my British eye.


But not to my British eye. Although never in my active vocabulary, I was aware of the word being used in BE when I was young, and I've never thought of using a singular verb with it. Except, of course, in "_pantyhose_ is an American word for _tights_".


----------



## london calling

Yes. Panty hose are tights as far as l'm concerned.


----------



## dojibear

For centuries European men (especially upper-class men) wore "hose" as an outer garment. We call those "tights" today, as in the American 1993 movie "Robin Hood: Men in Tights".

In modern BE, "pants" are an undergarment. In modern AE, "pants" are trousers (an outer garment), while "panties" (female) and "underpants" (male) are undergarments. These are all spoken of as "pairs" -- even ones with no legs. Socks and stockings ("hose") come in pairs. A garment that combines panties with hose is naturally called "pantyhose". No, I won't use that word in a sentence.

The people who create dictionaries try to make all of this logical, somehow. They deserve our sympathy.


----------



## Edinburgher

tunaafi said:


> Unlike other 'pair' words _trouser*s*, pant*s*, tight*s*, scissor*s*_, etc - _pantyhose_ looks singular to my British eye.


My thoughts exactly.  I always thought the equivalent of "*a pair* of tights" was "*a* pantyhose".
I must be conditioned by my German background, where "Hose" (as also in "Lederhose") is singular (meaning a pair of trousers) and the plural "Hosen" means several pairs.  The German equivalent of "tights" is consistent with this; its name ends in singular "-hose" or plural "-hosen" depending on whether one means one pair or several pairs.


----------



## bennymix

dojibear said:


> For centuries European men (especially upper-class men) wore "hose" as an outer garment. We call those "tights" today, as in the American 1993 movie "Robin Hood: Men in Tights".
> 
> In modern BE, "pants" are an undergarment. In modern AE, "pants" are trousers (an outer garment), while "panties" (female) and "underpants" (male) are undergarments. These are all spoken of as "pairs" -- even ones with no legs. Socks and stockings ("hose") come in pairs. A garment that combines panties with hose is naturally called "pantyhose". No, I won't use that word in a sentence.
> 
> The people who create dictionaries try to make all of this logical, somehow. They deserve our sympathy.



I'm no BE expert, but I think your statement about 'underpants' is not correct.    A BE speaker, help, please.

Also, my impression for AE currently is that 'underpants' is mainly used for kids, not so much for adult males.

Google hits for "men's underpants", 300,000.   For 'men's briefs', over 1 million.


----------



## tunaafi

As a British male, I wear pants under my trousers.


----------



## bennymix

From a long thread of mostly lighthearted British complaints about Americanization;

Mark Scott

>>England in the pure form it was before you Americans decided to change it
>>into an unintelligable mess.

[Mark, later:]  frankly, a PANTYHOSE is laughable...try TIGHTS....

{PK2222 responded}: I have both in my wardrobe...I choose one or the other depending on the outside
temperature.

Google Groups
===

I think the problem is that British people have not fully assimilated the American _pantyhose_ word, and somehow have, oddly, chosen the singular pronoun to match it. Is it because 'hose' is singular in BE? Do British people say, about a garment, "My hose is torn"?


----------



## bennymix

Edinburgher said:


> My thoughts exactly.  I always thought the equivalent of "*a pair* of tights" was "*a* pantyhose".
> I must be conditioned by my German background, where "Hose" (as also in "Lederhose") is singular (meaning a pair of trousers) and the plural "Hosen" means several pairs.  The German equivalent of "tights" is consistent with this; its name ends in singular "-hose" or plural "-hosen" depending on whether one means one pair or several pairs.



I think you've correctly identified the problem, my friend.


----------



## Uncle Jack

tunaafi said:


> As a British male, I wear pants under my trousers.


So do I, having grown up "down south". However, all my Cumbrian-born neighbours seem to wear their pants as outer garments, in the American fashion. I have not sought to inquire what they wear underneath.


----------



## tunaafi

Kecks?


----------



## Andygc

bennymix said:


> I think you've correctly identified the problem, my friend.


What problem? Monolingual BE speakers do not, generally speaking, wear "hose", and the use and meaning of a German word has no bearing on perceiving the alien (to them) "pantyhose" to be an uncountable of plural form. Scottish men's outfitters may well sell kilt hose by the pair, but they don't sell single hose, even for one-legged kilt wearers.


----------



## Edinburgher

Andygc said:


> What problem?


I think he means my "problem" of misinterpreting English "hose" as singular.
Of course, given that English "hose" is almost certainly derived from its equivalent in German, Dutch, or Norse, it is not unreasonable to expect that if it is singular in those languages, that it should be so in English too.  That it isn't amounts to, well, a singularity.


----------



## Andygc

The supposed problem arose earlier. 


bennymix said:


> I think the problem is that British people have not fully assimilated the American _pantyhose_ word


Not a specific "problem" for an English and German bilingual speaker.


----------



## rightnow

Is "_these pantyhose are_" correct for a single pair of pantyhose or for many pantyhose collectively, but "_these two pantyhose_" wrong because with a numeral we need "_these two *pairs* of pantyhose_" then?


----------



## Ponyprof

Two points.

Learners getting into more specific uses of English are well advised to find more complete dictionaries that note when things are outmoded or archaic. After a certain point the Abridged Learners Dictionaries seem to sow confusion.

Second point: pantyhose were invented when I was a child young enough that "panty" was considered a dirty word or at least an occasion for much giggling. Girls wore skirts to school (trousers not allowed). I was dumbfounded at that age to see and hear the word pantyhose enter polite conversation seamlessly.


----------



## rightnow

Unfortunately, the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, despite comprehensively dealing with "_Plural-only with -s ending_" nouns such as _scissors_, it does not mention _(panty)hose._


----------



## Uncle Jack

rightnow said:


> Unfortunately, the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, despite comprehensively dealing with "_Plural-only with -s ending_" nouns such as _scissors_, it does not mention _(panty)hose._


"Pantyhose" does not end in "-s".  

There are very few plural-only nouns in English that don't end in "-s". How does the _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_ treat police, cattle and the English?


----------



## rightnow

Uncle Jack said:


> "Pantyhose" does not end in "-s".
> 
> There are very few plural-only nouns in English that don't end in "-s". How does the _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_ treat police, cattle and the English?


Police/cattle does not entail the "duality of the legs" in _(panty)hose, bloomer*s* breech*es* brief*s* britch*es*_ etc.


----------



## suzi br

rightnow said:


> [Threads merged at this point.  DonnyB - moderator]
> The Wiktionary entries indicate that *hose* is _uncountable_ (for _2. A stocking-like garment worn on the legs; pantyhose_) while _pantyhose_ or its synonym _tights_ are "plural only".
> 
> Yet, Collins Concise English Dictionary shows both "_hose, hosen_" as the plural forms of _hose_.
> 
> According to Microsoft® Encarta® 2009, _(panty)hose_ is a plural noun itself as is _tights_ or _oats _and unlike, say, "_sheep_ (plural _sheep_)" or _hose_ in its meaning of "flexible tube", which shows the usual plural _hoses_.
> 
> Currently all this information is at odds, so I need a clarification.



I see lots of issues in this thread - but what is YOUR actual need?  Do you have a sentence you are trying to read (or write)  which we can discuss?  The general point is quite complex, to judge from the various answers we have here now.  But, really, what is your issue?


----------



## rightnow

Is it also a synonym of _hosiery?_

stockings, socks, and tights *collectively*
Collins Concise English Dictionary


----------



## tunaafi

No.


----------



## Andygc

rightnow said:


> Unfortunately, the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, despite comprehensively dealing with "_Plural-only with -s ending_" nouns such as _scissors_, it does not mention _(panty)hose._


Why should CGEL waste paper and ink on discussing an AE word for "tights"? CGEL hails from Cambridge in Cambridgeshire, not Cambridge in Massachusetts. 


suzi br said:


> But, really, what is your issue?


But could you, perhaps, answer that question? Maybe a complete sentence with some background might help.


----------



## london calling

bennymix said:


> I think the problem is that British people have not fully assimilated the American _pantyhose_ word, and somehow have, oddly, chosen the singular pronoun to match it. Is it because 'hose' is singular in BE? Do British people say, about a garment, "My hose is torn"?


Ha.
As I said above as far as I'm concerned pantyhose takes a plural verb. Not that I ever call tights that. I wear tights, not pantyhose.

I don't wear hoses so I could never tear one.


----------



## bennymix

My shoes need shining,
my hose is torn,
my Latina skin showing through
like polka dots, since the _Nude_
color had in mind
fairer, happier girls. 

October 2017 – Alphabet City

Is this talk NOT found in British English?


----------



## velisarius

My hoses are just like london calling's hoses. I use them to water the garden.

_My hose has sprung a leak. 
My tights have a hole in them._

When I was young there was a very posh department store in Brighton. When I went there to buy my stockings (a very long time ago), I followed a sign directing customers to "Hosiery".


----------



## rightnow

velisarius said:


> My hoses are just like london calling's hoses.


What does that sentence mean? I cannot parse it


----------



## Andygc

bennymix said:


> Is this talk NOT found in British English?


It's hardly any form of everyday English. It's a fragment of poetry. No, it's not found in ordinary conversation in BE. But we have already told you that, several times.


----------



## Andygc

rightnow said:


> What does that sentence mean? I cannot parse it


See post 42.


----------



## rightnow

Andygc said:


> See post 42.


How is _london calling's hoses_ parsed? what does _calling_ mean here?


----------



## velisarius

rightnow said:


> What does that sentence mean? I cannot parse it


Sorry, rightnow. I was referring to the photo of the garden hose that our fellow member london calling posted in post #42.
That is what "a hose" is for me too, in BE.


----------



## rightnow

velisarius said:


> Sorry, rightnow. I was referring to the photo of the garden hose that our fellow member london calling posted in post #42.
> That is what "a hose" is for me too, in BE.


Now I got it, what "the user" _london calling._..


----------



## Uncle Jack

bennymix said:


> My shoes need shining,
> my hose is torn,
> my Latina skin showing through
> like polka dots, since the _Nude_
> color had in mind
> fairer, happier girls.
> 
> October 2017 – Alphabet City
> 
> Is this talk NOT found in British English?


You know very well it is not. As has already been established; "hose" (referring to clothing), inasmuch as it is used at all in modern British English, is plural.


Uncle Jack said:


> Elsewhere in in the OED entry, "hose" (singular), referring to the clothing, is marked as "_Obsolete_", with the most recent quote from 1682, suggesting it never really made it into Modern English, but it seems common enough in Middle English. The collective plural use of "hose" is still current. "A pair of hose" is listed with no obsolete or archaic marker, but there are no modern quotes to support its use.





natkretep said:


> Well, we still talk about the kilt hose (usually for men). I'd use the plural _hose _here (not _hosen_).
> View attachment 37175


----------



## Andygc

Uncle Jack said:


> You know very well it is not.


To be fair, if I wrote poetically about a woman or a kilt-wearing Scotsman having a torn stocking, I would write his or her "hose is torn" and I can't think of any context where I'd use a plural verb with that archaic usage, but that's not relevant to panty-hose, when it would be "her tights are torn".


----------



## rightnow

Andygc said:


> To be fair, if I wrote poetically about a woman or a kilt-wearing Scotsman having a torn stocking, I would write his or her "hose is torn" and I can't think of any context where I'd use a plural verb with that archaic usage, but that's not relevant to panty-hose, when it would be "her tights are torn".


Why not "_her pantyhose are torn_"?


----------



## tunaafi

Because items of clothing don't 'break'.


----------



## rightnow

tunaafi said:


> Because items of clothing don't 'break'.


Romance languages... my bad!


----------



## Andygc

rightnow said:


> Why not "_her pantyhose are torn_"?


Because I don't speak AE.


----------



## london calling

rightnow said:


> What does that sentence mean? I cannot parse it


Velisarius and I only use a hose to water the garden.


----------

