# scissors, pants, jeans... are they really uncountable nouns?



## marrisol

Hello all!
My grammar book says that the above mentioned words are uncountable. I believe to have heard some people using numbers with them.The sentences "I need three scissors" or "I bought two pants" don't sound odd to me.  Are they really wrong?
Saying "I bought two pairs of pants" instead of "two pants" sounds somewhat awkward to me. Is this just me or is my grammar book a little out of touch with real life English?


----------



## Loob

Hi marrisol

Here's how they sound to me:
_Three pairs of pants _
_Three pants _
_Three pairs of jeans _
_Three jeans _
_Three pairs of scissors _
_Three scissors _

I hope that helps


----------



## panjandrum

Previous references may be helpful.
scissors / pants: singular or plural?
(singular or plural) jeans, pants
pants, jeans:

I have come across countable scissors, but not pants or jeans.


----------



## marrisol

Thanks for your answers. 
Going through the older threads wouldn't have helped me as I was not asking if it's possible to say "a pants" which obviously isn't. I wanted to know if I could use plural numbers with "pants" without having to say "pairs of" but I take it it doesn't work either. 
So, on the bright side, I now know that I have a good grammar book ;-)


----------



## JamesM

Actually, if you had checked the older threads you would have seen that one of the questions was: "Can I say three pants?"

This board operates a little differently from other boards on the internet.  Rule #1 here is really a rule: "Look it up first".


----------



## Maria Ovidia

I dont think these words are uncountable nouns, but simply plural nouns with specific usage once they are always "_in twos_". 
Also I'll risk saying that informally people use the simpler forms: 
three scissors, 
in his trousers...
if we google these words, there will be varied options...
http://www.macmillandictionary.com


----------



## Aidanriley

I completely agree with Loob. I wouldn't refer to more than one of them unless "pairs of" was added.


----------



## JamesM

I can imagine saying "three scissors" in an informal conversation with a friend, such as "I went to the office supply store and picked up three scissors for my classroom". I wouldn't use it in any formal or business setting, though. On the other hand, I can't imagine saying "I picked up three pants". The "pairs of" is so ingrained in me that it would come out automatically.



			
				Maria Ovidia said:
			
		

> in his trousers...


 
This would only be a single pair of pants to me. I can't imagine a context where it would be used with a number, as in "in his three trousers".


----------



## Cagey

I agree with the distinction Panjandrum makes in post #3; I think it is fairly common to talk about _three scissors_ but not _three pants _or_ jeans_, at least in AE.

Edit: I also agree with JamesM, who posted while I was slowly writing this.


----------



## timpeac

For me even the scissors example sounds wrong - "we've got three scissors in the kitchen drawer", hmmm - very odd! Makes me think of some sort of three bladed contraption.


----------



## Cagey

Sets of _three scissors_ are sold in both the UK and the US.  Aside from these:

Here is one non-commercial citation from the UK:Museum of London Archaeology _Three Scissors_
_Three Scissors_. Children's scissors found during our excavations of the Hamline Methodist Church site. The scissors are from the debris inside the church *...*​One from the US:Treasury decisions under customs and other laws‎ - Page 239
United States. Dept. of the Treasury (1927).
 *...* return for duty leather cases when fitted with _three scissors_ and the cases are of substantial and durable quality as leather cases permanently fitted *...*

(There are more recent examples from the US, but this was the most august.)​


----------



## timpeac

Cagey said:


> Sets of _three scissors_ are sold in both the UK and the US.  Aside from these:
> 
> Here is one non-commercial citation from the UK:Museum of London Archaeology _Three Scissors_​


​ Maybe - but the person who uploaded it is called Buzz Hoffman which would make me suspect he's American. Also he has a job as "college professor" whereas a Brit would talk of "university don".

But I'm not claiming a BE/AE difference necessarily, just saying that three scissors certainly sounds strange to me.


----------



## Aidanriley

Three scissors sounds very weird to me. I'm not sure if that helps things or makes them even more confusing.


----------



## Loob

Cagey said:


> Sets of _three scissors_ are sold in both the UK and the US. Aside from these [...]


Cagey, you can find pants & jeans examples too ...

_Whether your girlfriend is pressuring you to go on a shopping spree or you feel the urge to tailor your clothes to today's look, there's no need to panic; all you'll need this winter are three shirts and *three pants*, and you'll have a blast heating up any room. (__source__)_

_Here are my top *three jeans* for the summer_ _(__source__)_

But I think there's something a bit "unusual" about all of these - there's a sort of understood 'styles of'/'types of'/'examples of' involved: no?


----------



## Aidanriley

Loob said:


> Cagey, you can find pants & jeans examples too ...
> 
> _Whether your girlfriend is pressuring you to go on a shopping spree or you feel the urge to tailor your clothes to today's look, there's no need to panic; all you'll need this winter are three shirts and *three pants*, and you'll have a blast heating up any room. (__source__)_
> 
> _Here are my top *three jeans* for the summer_ _(__source__)_
> 
> But I think there's something a bit "unusual" about all of these - there's a sort of understood 'styles of'/'types of'/'examples of' involved: no?


 
Those examples sound perfectly fine to me. I think the first one sounds okay because it parallels "three shirts."


----------



## Cagey

I can find pants and jean samples, too, but when I look them over, many of them are other constructions in which the juxtaposition with_ three _is coincidental. 

When I search with "scissors", the majority of the first pages are advertisements for sets of three scissors, from both UK and US vendors.

I seem to have made a mistake when I relied on a London Museum to represent British usage.  Here is one in which the provenance is certainly British ~ I think. http://www.frenchaymuseumarchives.co.uk/Archives/Schools/AllSaintsSchLogBook_1944-61.rtf.
2 June 1958  School re-opened.  Cleaner's child found back door and stock cupboard door when she came  to open School for Sunday School. head teacher found everything disarranged. [....] _Three scissors_ were missing. From the archives of the _Frenchay Village Museum_​Having said all that, I have worked at a job in which scissors were a tool of the trade.  As I remember it, we usually talked about "my scissors", but "a new pair of scissors".  I'm not certain whether we would say "we need more scissors [multiple]" or "we need more pairs of scissors."  I tend to think we said the former.


----------



## JamesM

Aidanriley said:


> Three scissors sounds very weird to me. I'm not sure if that helps things or makes them even more confusing.


 
Just to clarify my comment,   I would not normally say "there are three scissors in the drawer".  It does sound odd to me, too.  

I can imagine it, however, if you are casually speaking about picking up multiple pairs at the store, as in "I picked up five rulers, two staplers and three scissors to replace the ones stolen from the office".  It would not be _correct_ English, in my opinion, but I can definitely imagine hearing it and even saying it, if I wasn't thinking about what I was saying.  "Pairs of scissors" sounds better to me but I think it's a slip that's not unheard of, whereas "where are my three pants" would sound so odd as to be (nearly) unheard of to me.


----------



## abenr

I find nothing wrong in saying three scissors.  In fact I don't believe I would say or have ever said anything other than that.


----------



## timpeac

Cagey said:


> I can find pants and jean samples, too, but when I look them over, many of them are other constructions in which the juxtaposition with_ three _is coincidental.
> 
> When I search with "scissors", the majority of the first pages are advertisements for sets of three scissors, from both UK and US vendors.
> 
> I seem to have made a mistake when I relied on a London Museum to represent British usage.  Here is one in which the provenance is certainly British ~ I think.http://www.frenchaymuseumarchives.co.uk/Archives/Schools/AllSaintsSchLogBook_1944-61.rtf.
> 2 June 1958  School re-opened.  Cleaner's child found back door and stock cupboard door when she came  to open School for Sunday School. head teacher found everything disarranged. [....] _Three scissors_ were missing. From the archives of the _Frenchay Village Museum_​Having said all that, I have worked at a job in which scissors were a tool of the trade.  As I remember it, we usually talked about "my scissors", but "a new pair of scissors".  I'm not certain whether we would say "we need more scissors [multiple]" or "we need more pairs of scissors."  I tend to think we said the former.


The source that you quote there, though, is very elliptical (presumably to save space). In the bit you quote there we have "School re-opened" "child found back door" "head teacher found" all with no articles for example.

I'm not saying you don't find it - but I would find it odd to hear someone actually say "could you go and fetch me three scissors please" - well as equally strange as "be sure to bring at least three trousers with you" etc.

That said - I don't find "we need more scissors" as strange, just colloquial.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Quote as many examples from Google as you feel like but that doesn't convince me it sounds normal nor rewires my brain to treat it as acceptable, I agree with Loob / timepac.
If we were researching usage statistics then maybe, but this is about what we personally feel is correct / incorrect as native speakers on a language forum, I don't see the relevance of quoting articles in this way.



> Makes me think of some sort of three bladed contraption


Maybe something like this?


----------



## pickarooney

Has nobody else ever said 'scissorses' to mean more than one set of scissors? 

dictionary.com lists the singular 'scissor' as an alternative noun to 'scissors'.


----------



## Aidanriley

Scissorses? No, can't say I have. That'd be a double plural or something; each blade is a scissor, and together they are a pair of scissors.


----------



## juan89

Why don't you just say two pairs of scissors...


----------



## Copyright

If the lady asked me what I was packing for our trip and I wanted to give a quick rundown, I might say, "I've packed five shirts, three pants, seven underwear, and five pairs of socks." I would probably always say "pairs" with socks because those little guys are separable, unlike pants which are sewn into loyalty.


----------



## sound shift

If these were uncountable nouns, we would say

 "The scissors *is* on the table" and
 "My trousers *is* too long".

So no, they are not uncountable.


----------



## marrisol

Interesting... I didn't think my question would kick off such an extensive debate. 

Sound shift: I see your point. Nevertheless they do appear in my grammar book in the "uncountable nouns" section just as they do in this explanation.



> *Plural uncountable nouns*
> 
> Some uncountable nouns are plural. They have no singular forms with the same meaning, and cannot be used with numbers. Examples are: trousers, jeans, pyjamas, pants, scissors, spectacles, glasses, arms, goods, customs, groceries, clothes and thanks




I guess they treat them like uncountables because you can't say *_one pant_ nor *_three pants_  without "the detour" of using _a_ _pair of_ (as I have just learnt) just as you can't say *_one bread_ or *_two breads_ without using _a loaf of,_ the only difference being that scissors/pants/jeans... are plural by nature.


I was just asking because I was anticipating that my students would ask the same question when we get to the next unit because in German we can also say "a pair of trousers/pants/jeans..." but we leave it out more often and I guess that's why it sounded more natural to me without it.



Anyway, thanks for your help which is very much appreciated!


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hi Marrisol,

My grammar book agrees with yours "Swan: Practical English Usage":


> 5. Plural Uncountables
> Some uncountable nouns are plural. They have no singular forms with the same meaning, and cannot normally be used with numbers.
> 
> _I've bought the *groceries*. (But not a grocery ... or ... three groceries_
> _The *groceries* are on the table (But not the groceries is on the table)_


 
It also lists "customs" (i.e. at Dover) and 'thanks' as other examples.


----------



## abenr

marrisol said:


> I guess they treat them like uncountables because you can't say *_one pant_ nor *_three pants_  without "the detour" of using _a_ _pair of_ (as I have just learnt) just as you can't say *_one bread_ or *_two breads_ without using _a loaf of,_ the only difference being that scissors/pants/jeans... are plural by nature.



You can correctly say "one bread" or "two breads" in my neck of the woods.  Here are two examples.

*I'd like one rye bread, please.*

*I'll have two breads, please: one rye, one whole wheat.*

"Loaf" is not needed in either sentence.


----------



## pickarooney

Not only is it acceptable (in many places) to say 'a bread' or 'two breads', it's downright wrong to say 'a loaf of bread' when referring to baguettes, pita, chapatis...


----------



## Alxmrphi

But it's well known when you're referring to different sub-types then it is possible to use numbers in some circumstances.

Like going into a cheese shop (where there are obviously lots of types of cheese) and saying "I'll have 5 cheeses today" (you're referring to different types) so it's ok, but it's still an uncountable noun insofar as the function when not referring to different types (this goes for the 'bread' example 2 posts above as well).

You might say "a rye bread", and refer to a specific, whatwouldyoucallit, a stick of it, this is again, normal, it's in an identifiable countable form.

@pickarooney, the 'default' word to use isn't 'loaf', it's usually the most common, but like the jeans/scissors example, where the default word is 'pair' to use with it, this isn't the same with loaf so you don't have to use 'loaf' with ciabatta, baguette, garlic bread etc.

More info can be found here, for example:



> However, like many sneaky uncountable nouns, there is an exception: if you are speaking of multiple kinds of milk, it can be pluralized, as in “Sheep, cows and goats give different-flavored milks.” This is generally considered a correct usage of the word, even though the noun is usually considered uncountable. If you are going to pluralize an uncountable noun, be certain you are referring to different varieties of one thing rather than multiple quantities of it.


 
And to sum up the idea of uncountable nouns in English with:


> More simply put, they are uncountable because we can’t understand the amount implied without further information. However, as with most rules of English grammar, the exceptions and complications immediately creep in.


 
So if although there are exceptions, if you can't gauge a quantity when adding numbers to it (again I'm referring to the 'bread' example now) then it's uncountable, and referring to different types is a well-known exception to many many uncountable nouns.


----------



## Derselbe

Aidanriley said:


> each blade is a scissor, and together they are a pair of scissors.


 
Just from a logical point of view, if we assume that the word scissors on its own always refers to a pair of scissors. Wouldn't it be accurate to say that one pair of scissors consists of *two scissors*?


----------



## abenr

I have never heard anyone ask "Have you seen the pair of scissors?"  I've only heard "Have you seen the scissors? I thought I put them down on the table."  In answer, I've only heard "The scissors are in the drawer."

Usage clearly trumps grammar in this case.


----------



## JamesM

Actually, your usage confirms grammar in this case.   You haven't heard "The scissors _is_ in the drawer."


----------



## abenr

JamesM said:


> Actually, your usage confirms grammar in this case.   You haven't heard "The scissors _is_ in the drawer."



Thank goodness!


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

abenr said:


> I find nothing wrong in saying three scissors. In fact I don't believe I would say or have ever said anything other than that.



I very much agree.


----------



## MJSinLondon

Loob said:


> Hi marrisol
> 
> Here's how they sound to me:
> _Three pairs of pants _
> _Three pants _
> _Three pairs of jeans _
> _Three jeans _
> _Three pairs of scissors _
> _Three scissors _
> 
> I hope that helps


 
This is a wonderful thread!  I agree with Loob and with your grammar book, marrisol.


----------



## JamesM

I am not quite sure if this on topic and I hated to bring it up earlier, but I'll give it a try.

I often say "pair" instead of "pairs" for all these things, as in "three pair of pants".   I don't know whether it is colloquial or not.  I wouldn't write it that way but it sounds perfectly natural to say "pair", especially if I am talking quickly.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hi James, that's quite common over here as well.
It's typical of our Yorkshire dialect, though through reality TV when used with pants / jeans I've heard many other people say it.
It's not common where I'm from and I'd never say it (i.e. talking without thinking), it'd be one of those identifiable characteristics that make your mind instantly go 'Not from round here', but I don't have a problem with it at all, I didn't know it was also in the US actually.


----------



## bluegiraffe

JamesM said:


> I am not quite sure if this on topic and I hated to bring it up earlier, but I'll give it a try.
> 
> I often say "pair" instead of "pairs" for all these things, as in "three pair of pants". I don't know whether it is colloquial or not. I wouldn't write it that way but it sounds perfectly natural to say "pair", especially if I am talking quickly.


 Also common round my way.


----------



## timpeac

JamesM said:


> I am not quite sure if this on topic and I hated to bring it up earlier, but I'll give it a try.
> 
> I often say "pair" instead of "pairs" for all these things, as in "three pair of pants".   I don't know whether it is colloquial or not.  I wouldn't write it that way but it sounds perfectly natural to say "pair", especially if I am talking quickly.


I wouldn't say it - but it sounds believable.

It is something to do with nouns of quantity? I could also image "5 pound of butter", "3 acre of land", "2 pint of beer" - although again I wouldn't say them personally. In terms of our currency "pound" some people would also say "it cost 5 pound" etc.


----------



## Alxmrphi

timpeac said:


> In terms of our currency "pound" some people would also say "it cost 5 pound" etc.


 
Hi timepac, wouldn't you?

I'm not aware of anyone that uses the plural 'pound' when talking about currency. I've met a fair few people as well!
If you came home with a book that cost £7 and someone asked you how much it was, would you say "It cost me seven pounds." ?
Or if you got a cheque for Christmas for £100 would you say "_I got a 100 pounds cheque off Mary_." (or 'A cheque for 100 pounds') ?

In my area we use 'quid' more than we use pound (in colloquial speech), that's never pluralised either.


----------



## timpeac

Alxmrphi said:


> Hi timepac, wouldn't you?
> 
> I'm not aware of anyone that uses the plural 'pound' when talking about currency. I've met a fair few people as well!
> If you came home with a book that cost £7 and someone asked you how much it was, would you say "It cost me seven pounds." ?
> Or if you got a cheque for Christmas for £100 would you say "_I got a 100 pounds cheque off Mary_." (or 'A cheque for 100 pounds') ?
> 
> In my area we use 'quid' more than we use pound (in colloquial speech), that's never pluralised either.


Yes - I'd say "it cost seven pounds" but no I wouldn't say "100 pounds cheque" I'd say "100 pound cheque" - but here "pound" is an adjective.

Quid, though, is never plural for me either.


----------



## Phil-Olly

Loob said:


> Cagey, you can find pants & jeans examples too ...
> 
> _Whether your girlfriend is pressuring you to go on a shopping spree or you feel the urge to tailor your clothes to today's look, there's no need to panic; all you'll need this winter are three shirts and *three pants*, and you'll have a blast heating up any room. (__source__)_
> 
> _Here are my top *three jeans* for the summer_ _(__source__)_
> 
> But I think there's something a bit "unusual" about all of these - there's a sort of understood 'styles of'/'types of'/'examples of' involved: no?



Isn't this interesting? 

What about shop-assistant speak: 'That's a nice trouser, sir' ?


----------



## bluegiraffe

Phil-Olly said:


> What about shop-assistant speak: 'That's a nice trouser, sir' ?


 I don't think we shop in the same shops.


----------



## Alxmrphi

bluegiraffe said:


> I don't think we shop in the same shops.


Seconded 


			
				timepac said:
			
		

> but here "pound" is an adjective.


 
Of course it is, excuse my relapse.
Hmm, interesting about the plural pound, I can't actually remember how other people say it now, I'll go and watch some 'Cash in the attic' style shows and see what they say (I'd rather die ) but it's made me interested in doing a bit of research about it.

[Edit]:

Ok it seems some people draw a comparison with 'foot' as in "5 foot 10 inches" and use it in the singular and don't use the plural 'feet' and there are a few people who insist both forms are correct.
Some people have raised questions and it seems to be common that BBC readers (on TV and Radio are accustomed to using the singular) though I was not able to find any examples of this, just of people's questions about it (though BBC Learn English uses examples to the contrary).

Will look more later.


----------



## panjandrum

Phil-Olly said:


> Isn't this interesting?
> What about shop-assistant speak: 'That's a nice trouser, sir' ?


Shop-assistant or buyer, those who deal in varieties of these things as a matter of course seem to be happy talking about a style of them in the singular.  This seems to sound familiar with trouser and jean, but not pant and scissor.

Here is an example of the singular trouser.
This straight leg trouser has a very clean finish in order to make this an easy to wear style this will allow you to dress this trouser up as much as you like wear with our printed tops to create a contemporary look this trouser is available in black and brown to make this an easy style to go with any of this seasons colours
_Blame attribution_​ Make of that what you will


----------



## ortak

sound shift said:


> If these were uncountable nouns, we would say
> 
> "The scissors *is* on the table" and
> "My trousers *is* too long".
> 
> So no, they are not uncountable.


 


abenr said:


> I have never heard anyone ask "Have you seen the pair of scissors?" I've only heard "Have you seen the scissors? I thought I put them down on the table." In answer, I've only heard "The scissors are in the drawer."
> 
> Usage clearly trumps grammar in this case.


 


JamesM said:


> Actually, your usage confirms grammar in this case.  You haven't heard "The scissors _is_ in the drawer."


 
So as I understood it'd be better to say *they* to refer scissors instead of *it.*


----------



## Loob

ortak said:


> So as I understood it'd be better to say *they* to refer scissors instead of *it.*


Yes


----------



## ortak

Copyright said:


> If the lady asked me what I was packing for our trip and I wanted to give a quick rundown, I might say, "I've packed five shirts, three pants, seven underwear, and five pairs of socks." I would probably always say "pairs" with socks because those little guys are separable, unlike pants which are sewn into loyalty.


 
But it'd be wrong to say *they *to refer _trousers _because they are sewn into loyalty and  it is better to say *it. *


----------



## timpeac

ortak said:


> But it'd be wrong to say *they *to refer _trousers _because they are sewn into loyalty and  it is better to say *it. *


They. Where are your trousers? They are in the cupboard.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Exactly timpeac!
(My apologies, I only just realised your username isn't timepac!!)


----------



## MainePanda

I was actually hoping to find the reason why we say, "scissors, pants, glasses", etc. in the plural.  I read an article, years ago, saying that all things that used to be seperate and now together are now said in the plural.  
Hundreds of years ago, men wore two pants (one on each leg), connected by a belt at the hip.  
There were no eyeglasses connected to each other.  People of wealth had a monocle for one eye.  When it was invented for two eyes, glasses in the plural was used.
The same with scissors.  Two scisors (cutting pieces) were put together.
Jeans, shorts, pantyhose, tights, etc. come from that origin.

It doesn't have anything to do with countable or uncountable in that sense!


----------



## Loob

Hello MainePanda

I'm not _100%_ convinced by the idea that (for example) _trousers_ is plural because at one stage men wore a separate and singular trouser on each leg. But I do agree that it's the bipartite nature of trousers/pants/jeans/scissors/glasses etc that makes them (a) plural (b) come in 'pairs'.

Welcome to the forums!


----------



## marrisol

Thanks for sharing this interesting thought. Even if it is not historically correct (which I cannot judge), it does seem like a good explanation to give to students. Theses are exactly the kinds of stories that help them memorizing irregularities like these.


----------



## Andygc

MainePanda said:


> There were no eyeglasses connected to each other.  People of wealth had a monocle for one eye.  When it was invented for two eyes, glasses in the plural was used.


Sorry, that one certainly doesn't work. Spectacles were invented in the 13th century, probably in Italy. Monocles go back to the 18th century, again recorded in Italy.


----------

