Words that people have different meanings of

[sir baconface]

One thing that really irritates me is this idea that one version of the language is 'correct'. Trousers and pants is a typical example. Look up 'pants' in the dictionary and it will list the American meaning as trousers, and the British meaning as underpants. What they actually mean, of course, is that some prick in Cambridge or London uses it to mean underpants, therefore that must be the British version. Pants meaning trousers isn't even listed as an alternative meaning, despite the fact that obviously massive areas of the country use pants as a synonym for trousers.

And then you get this idea that people using 'pants' to mean trousers have somehow been corrupted by American media rather than that just being what people in that area have always said. And it's not hard to realise that 'pants' as a synonym for 'trousers' is clearly the older meaning. Firstly, just look at the translation of trousers in French, Spanish and Italian, and you have pantalon, pantalones and pantaloni. But the more obvious reason is the very existence of the word 'underpants,' which can only make sense if the things they are under are called pants. Otherwise trousers would be called overpants.

Incidentally, for the people who insist they're called trousers, what did you call these in the 90s?

Mum, can I have some Kappa trousers? Doesn't sound right to me.

Let's stick with the Queen's English. You're talking kex and underkex?

 

[m7mcfc]

As I said before. Probably Radcliffe:-))

The smell of Rad a mate used to say as we would drive down Dumers lane taking in the breathtaking scenery, It stank. The brother in law moved from Salford where he had never been burgled once to a new build private estate off Stand lane and was burgled three times in the first seven months he was there, next door twice. Unsurprisingly he sold up and got the feck out of there. Lunch ladies, I can just imagine them being called that in Radcliffe.

 

[BimboBob]

One thing that really irritates me is this idea that one version of the language is 'correct'. Trousers and pants is a typical example. Look up 'pants' in the dictionary and it will list the American meaning as trousers, and the British meaning as underpants. What they actually mean, of course, is that some prick in Cambridge or London uses it to mean underpants, therefore that must be the British version. Pants meaning trousers isn't even listed as an alternative meaning, despite the fact that obviously massive areas of the country use pants as a synonym for trousers

Utter toss.

Pants is a corruption of pantaloon. But for quite a few decades the word has meant underpants. It's a generation thing.

No one of a certain age, no matter where they live, uses the word pants to describe their trousers.

Now the youth and impressionables who like to use Americanisms as they think it sounds cool are using it again as a word for trousers.

I have no problem with this. Our language has ebbed and flowed like this for ages.

 

[BimboBob]

Oh...they weren't sold a kappa pants...tracksuit bottoms probably.

 

[blueincy]

 

[talkativesprout]

I told a customer our warehouse manager was storming round the warehouse with a right "cob on"

When she had stopped pissing herself she explained that a "Cob On" was an erection and not a bad mood where she comes from.

 

[CTID Chris]

Pacific is specifically a word used in relation to peace or the Pacific Ocean and it's bordering region. Many people use the word when describing something as being definite or a special reference to something, e.g; 'to be pacific', or 'a bread product; pacifically barm'.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Muffin...

 

[Juan King]

I told a customer our warehouse manager was storming round the warehouse with a right "cob on"

When she had stopped pissing herself she explained that a "Cob On" was an erection and not a bad mood where she comes from.

Why was he storming round with an erection?

 

[Kippax.]

Faggot

One meaning "oh sir"
The other being a meat ball.