Incorrect terminologies

[imageWIS]

I agree with the patch pockets on a classic blazer, though I'm not quite sure why you call them 'open' patch pockets. Is there such thing as a closed patch pocket?

I think the proper term for a jacket is 'jacket' instead of 'coat'.

'Trousers' and 'pants' are the same thing. 'Pants' is the American corruption of the Italian word 'pantaloni', which means trousers.

Well, yes there are patch pockets that utilize a flap and therefore are closed patch pockets.

Jon.

 

[Manton]

I agree with the patch pockets on a classic blazer, though I'm not quite sure why you call them 'open' patch pockets.  Is there such thing as a closed patch pocket?

Yes, it is not unheard-of to put a flap over the top of a patch pocket.

I think the proper term for a jacket is 'jacket' instead of 'coat'.

You are right, though English tailors call "jackets" "coats" for the purposes of construction. Why this is so is a mystery.

 

[naturlaut]

Quote:

(naturlaut @ Mar. 13 2005,12:18) I agree with the patch pockets on a classic blazer, though I'm not quite sure why you call them 'open' patch pockets. Â Is there such thing as a closed patch pocket? I think the proper term for a jacket is 'jacket' instead of 'coat'. 'Trousers' and 'pants' are the same thing. Â 'Pants' is the American corruption of the Italian word 'pantaloni', which means trousers.
Well, yes there are patch pockets that utilize a flap and therefore are closed patch pockets. Jon.
I don't recall seeing such on a suit-type jacket. On a safari coat, yes; but a sportcoat, no. Wouldn't that look a but too much? Since the patch pocket is already an extra fabric outside the jacket, the closing patch is yet another layer on top of the patch.

 

[Manton]

I don't recall seeing such on a suit-type jacket. Â On a safari coat, yes; but a sportcoat, no. Â Wouldn't that look a but too much? Â Since the patch pocket is already an extra fabric outside the jacket, the closing patch is yet another layer on top of the patch.

You see it sometimes on winter blazers (flannel) and tweed jackets. I suppose it's there to keep your shotgun shells from getting wet. Or something. Who knows. But it doesn't really look all that overdone. Busy, but still casual. Sometimes you even see a flap on the breast pocket. That's too much, in my opinion.

 

[Fabienne]

'Trousers' and 'pants' are the same thing.  'Pants' is the American corruption of the Italian word 'pantaloni', which means trousers.

More accurately, linguistically speaking, pants comes from the French pantalon, which, itself, came from the Italian (and I think the Italian came from a Greek word). I wouldn't call it a corruption. Language evolves, that's all.

 

[Fabienne]

Khaki.

When I mean the color (ie: yellowish-brown), the salesperson always brings beige or off-white...

 

[matadorpoeta]

Quote:

(naturlaut @ Mar. 13 2005,12:18) 'Trousers' and 'pants' are the same thing. Â 'Pants' is the American corruption of the Italian word 'pantaloni', which means trousers.
More accurately, linguistically speaking, pants comes from the French pantalon, which, itself, came from the Italian (and I think the Italian came from a Greek word). Â I wouldn't call it a corruption. Â Language evolves, that's all.
french: pantalon spanish: pantalon italian: pantaloni wasn't there an article of clothing in that was called "pantaloons" in english? like something george washington would have worn? what was the word in latin?

 

[imageWIS]

Quote:

(naturlaut @ Mar. 13 2005,19:46) I don't recall seeing such on a suit-type jacket. On a safari coat, yes; but a sportcoat, no. Wouldn't that look a but too much? Since the patch pocket is already an extra fabric outside the jacket, the closing patch is yet another layer on top of the patch.
You see it sometimes on winter blazers (flannel) and tweed jackets. I suppose it's there to keep your shotgun shells from getting wet. Or something. Who knows. But it doesn't really look all that overdone. Busy, but still casual. Sometimes you even see a flap on the breast pocket. That's too much, in my opinion.
Yes, any type of flap on a breast pocket is too much. Jon.

 

[Andrew V.]

wasn't there an article of clothing in that was called "pantaloons" in english? like something george washington would have worn?

As I recall, pantaloons were sort of like ruffly breeches that women wore under their skirts in the Victorian era.

On a related note, the words pants, trousers, and shorts should normally be used as plural words. I'm wearing either trousers or a pair of trousers, but I'm not wearing "a trouser" unless I cut one leg off or I'm writing obnoxious ad-copy jargon for Banana Republic.

 

[MCA]

matadorpoeta:
I should be happy to use those phrases in a sentence.
We should be happy to use those phrases in a sentence.
You would be happy to use those phrases in a sentence.
They would be happy to use those phrases in a sentence.
I shall use those phrases ...
We shall use those phrases
They will use those phrases
You will use those phrases.

En ingles, el verbo que es corecto cambia con la persona quien esta hablando. Por ejemplo, cuando la persona es el primero (I, We), el verbo es "shall". Cuando la persona es la tercera, el verbo es "will". Mucha gente tiene confusion en eso y la majoria piensan que el verbo no importa. La verdad es que, para la gente quien quieren protejar la lengua Ingles, este es importante. Intiende?

Edit: Damn - can't spell in any language.

Hola Alex-

As a non-native speaker I found your post very intriguing (and also a bit confusing) so I investigated a bit and confirmed my findings with a faculty member from the English Dept of my University. In a nutshell, the use of "will" in 1st person is correct, with the excepion of very formal situations. It is up to forum members what level of formality they want to convey (I think the SF is an informal and relaxed setting), without harming the English languaje in any way. On the other hand, the use of the verbs "should" and "would" in any person and under all situations is entirely correct.

I hope my findings are of interest to non-native and native speakers alike, and thank you Alex for bringing such interesting point into the discussion. I have learned a good deal from it.

--------
"Will" is now commonly used for all persons, except in the first
person for questions--say "Shall I go" v. "Will I go"--and in formal
contexts--say "We shall consider each of your reasons" v. "We will
consider each of your reasons"

"Should" is used for all persons when condition or obligation is
being expressed--e.g., "If he should stay . . ."; "We should go"

"Would" is used for all persons to express a wish or customary
action--e.g., "Would that I had listened"; "I would ride the same
bus every day"

[Prentice-Hall Handbook for Writers]

 

[matadorpoeta]

"I should be happy to use those phrases in a sentence."

They talk like that in 'masterpiece theatre' movies, in both formal, and informal situations.

alex,
gracias por los ejemplos. escribes muy bien el español con solo algunos errores. de todas maneras escribes mejor que la mayoria de mis parientes.

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

matadorpoeta,
por los ejemplos ... de nada. despues de cuando escribio eso, unas personas mandan opiniones (con prueba del diccionario O.E.D. nuevo.) que hoy dia el mundo es mas informal. problamente estan correcto ... y los dias de mi abuelo estan pasada. que triste, no?
Alejandro

 

[Pressfan]

On a related note, the words pants, trousers, and shorts should normally be used as plural words. I'm wearing either trousers or a pair of trousers, but I'm not wearing "a trouser" unless I cut one leg off or I'm writing obnoxious ad-copy jargon for Banana Republic.

Amen. Unfortunately, it is not just confined to Banana Republic; the (mis)usage seems ubiquitous. As annoying as people who say they "could care less".

 

[andreyb]

And since we are on terminologies, is there a name for the 'James Bond shirt cuffs' --- a folded back cuffs but cutaway on the edge to give way for two buttons?

I saw them with the names "coctail cuffs" and "casino cuffs". But I'm not sure what term is correct. Alex?

Andrey

 

[Renault78law]

pe·ruse: To read or examine, typically with great care Usage Note: Peruse has long meant "to read thoroughly" and is often used loosely when one could use the word read instead. Sometimes people use it to mean "to glance over, skim," as in I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly, but this usage is widely considered an error. Sixty-six percent of the Usage Panel finds it unacceptable. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language