OSNews

I think you is taking it way too seriously.

No. Not at all. My post was not intended as a complaint or nitpick, but to convey information which I thought might be interesting and helpful to a nonnative English speaker interested in languages.

However, this is one comic that I didn't laugh at. Not because I think it is bad, but because the topic of SCO is so old and worn out. I think someone compared it to the monster in the horror B movie that just wont die, and I have to agree with the sentiment.

Edit: How about "Darl McBride vs The Eveready Bunny" for a B movie title? ;-)

Edited 2008-05-08 02:57 UTC

No. Not at all. My post was not intended as a complaint or nitpick, but to convey information which I thought might be interesting and helpful to a nonnative English speaker interested in languages.

Atleast I do appreciate all these insights and I find them very interesting. I have always been interested in learning languages and I just have some natural talent for it. Actually, everyone in my family has been fast at picking up new languages. Anyways, I do say "pants are" but I too have noticed some US-originated citizens tend to say it as "pants is".

I suppose it has something to do with pants having two "pant legs". Then a again, a shirt has two arms, and a brassiere usually[1] has two cups. But still, as a whole, it does not really make sense to to me to treat "pants" as plural... unless you cut them in half with scissors. But then you have another problem, because "scissors" is also treated as plural.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_characters_from_The_Hitchhiker~*...

Edited 2008-05-08 11:50 UTC

I really appreciate that. I am always happy when someone corrects my "four-year old boy" English

I guess it falls under the same sort of reason why those of the 'commonwealth' (NZ, Aussie, UK and possibly Canada) tend to refer to a organisation and use are, "Microsoft are a large organisation" - are being used in terms of plurality, meaning, the plurality of the components which make it up. In the case of pants - "your pants are on fire", and when referring to pants its quite normal to say, "I own a pair of black pants".

Then again, it is like the use of an before a word beginning with a vowel "an apple" whilst at the same time using an even though the word doesn't start with a vowel but sounds strange if 'a' is used. When is is used instead of are, in respects to pants, it just doesn't sound right and the sentence doesn't flow - it sounds disjointed.

Edited 2008-05-08 15:44 UTC

Also worth bearing in mind: 'pants' means 'underwear' to Commonwealth English speakers (but is still plural). We exclusively use the word 'trousers' for the visible full-leg article of clothing.

That is a distinction I wasn't aware. I have always used 'pants' when I have been talking about 'trousers'. So, thank you for the note, I shall try to remember it (I am still trying to hone my english language skills. There are so many subtle little things everywhere to remember But, care to explain what does 'fanny' mean?

In the UK at least it's slang for vagina I believe.

In the US, the word 'fanny' refers to the 'rear end'.

Oh, and I've always figured that pants was considered plural because it ends in 's'. I know that's not a very good rule, though, because there are plenty of exceptions (There's a good English rule!). I just haven't been able to think of a better reason!

Edited 2008-05-08 15:44 UTC

Not only does "fanny" mean "rear end" in the US, but it's considered a very innocuous, and even childish word. It's also antiquated, and not in wide use anymore, which should come as a relief to horrified Brits.

This is why it is all the more important for us in the US to bring about the demise of the fanny pack!