Given my explanation of "pant" as referring to a style rather than a  
unique object, I disagree with Bruce's idea that people are  
conflicted. I doubt (again, without data confirmation) that "pant" is  
used outside of situations in which the style or model of the item is  
in question. I doubt that people use the singular in everyday  
language about clothing.

As with all language questions, this would be ultimately settled by  
empirical study. We should always be aware of the difference between  
"armchair" speculation and what is found out through study of actual  
usage. Results of the latter give us the only scientifically  
acceptable conclusion; and even those conclusions have to be tested  
for robustness by repeating data collection and analysis.

Bruce is definitely wise to advise us not to expect language to  
follow rules of logic from other domains such as mathematics or  
formal logic. Language follows the logic of human beings' social and  
survival concerns, and is guided by how our brains perceive and  
divide up the world. Language also preserves many "fossilized"  
remnants from the past which no longer make sense in the current  
version of the language. Our irregular plurals (foot-feet) are  
leftovers from an ancient phonetic effect of a suffix which was long  
ago dropped from the word; back then, it made phonetic sense.  
Similarly, our irregular verbs (sing-sang-sung) stem from an even  
more ancient system in which verbs were probably categorized  
according to their meaning. It's amazing that irregular features can  
remain in a language for thousands of years -- but you'll notice that  
irregular forms survive most in high-frequency, basic meaning areas,  
such as body parts, basic actions like sitting, sleeping, eating. As  
a verb is used less frequently, it tends to regularize -- the current  
past participle for "strike" in its concrete sense of hitting is  
"struck"; "stricken" is reserved for diseases or emotional trauma,  
and is probably used mainly in passive voice and participials ("grief- 
stricken"; "he was stricken with cancer early in life" but "he was  
struck by a falling brick"). The ancient plural of "book" was  
"beech", because of ancient practices of writing on tree bark.  
"Books" took over, and was probably strengthened by the end of any  
association between trees and books.

In other cases, an irregular form specializes in meaning -- we now  
have "older brothers", not "elder brethren". "Elder" and "brethren"  
have specialized social senses (though "elder brother" is still in use).

Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Dept.
Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184
Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596
Dept. fax: 805-756-6374
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/