Ring around the pantaloon.
Dear Word Detective: Where did the term "pantaloons" originate? It doesn't have the ring of an early English word. -- Jamie Thompson, via the internet.
Forsooth. As we say in the word biz, that's cause it's not. By the way, when we say that an idea or assertion has "the ring" of something (often "the ring of truth"), we're using an idiom that harks back to the early 19th century, when counterfeit coins were common. Merchants of the day became experts at detecting fake coins by dropping the coin on the counter and listening closely to the ringing sound, which, in the case of a counterfeit adulterated with lead or the like, would be dull in comparison to pure silver or gold. By 1850, we were using "to have the ring of" in the metaphorical sense of "to be characteristic or indicative of" (e.g., "Larry blaming the dog for the missing beer has the ring of drunken desperation").
Meanwhile, back at "pantaloon," this is a word rarely heard today except in reference to various kinds of men's trousers prior to the 20th century. "Pantaloons" in general are short trousers (sometimes quite loose, but in the 19th century rather tight), usually reaching just under the knee and worn with stockings.
But the original "pantaloon" was a person, not a garment. Pantalone was a stock character in the Italian commedia dell'arte (popular comedy theater) in the 16th century, usually portrayed as a silly old man attired in short, loose-fitting trousers and stockings. By the late 16th century the Anglicized form "pantaloon" had come to mean a feeble and foolish old man (as in Shakespeare's As You Like It: "... the lean and slippered pantaloon with spectacles on nose, and pouch on side, his youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide for his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice, turning again toward childish treble, pipes and whistles in his sound.").
Shortly thereafter "pantaloon" came to be applied to the "Pantalone" style of trousers as well, and eventually was shortened to simply "pants."
The next logical question is why we refer to this kind of garment as "a pair of pants" when they (it?) are (is?) a single item. The answer is that until the late 1600s leg garments came in pairs, one for each leg, which were donned separately and then laced or belted together at the top. And while we're at it, "trousers," imported into English from the 16th century Scots Gaelic "triubhas," were originally one-piece close-fitting shorts worn with hose, but have lengthened over subsequent centuries, making "trousers" now synonymous with "pants."
|
