That would definitely be worse than going commando. At least she can justifiably say that not having underwear was a stupid mistake, but people will assume there was deliberate intent if she's caught wearing those.
Grammar question: would it be “caught wearing those, or “caught wearing that?
Inquiring minds . . .
From a purely grammatical standpoint, it’s “those.” A single article of underwear is referred to in the plural form in English for some reason (i.e. a pair of boxers or a pair of panties). “That” is used for singular nouns, while “those” is meant for plurals. “Them” could also technically work, but that word is generally used in reference to people, so it would come across as a bit odd unless you wished to personify the g-string.
'Them' CAN be used for people but its used constantly to refer to things too right? if you are refering to multiple.
Like 'I left my bags by the door can you go and get them for me?' Or 'Did eat the buns? ' yes I ate them earlier'
or 'did you wash my panties - yes I put them in the washer.'
You cant use 'those' for any of these cases right? unless you change the sentence around. I dont know the proper rules, but I think you use 'those' before stating the noun -' can you go and bring me those 2 bags I left by the door'
whereas when you say what the thing/s are first, it switches to 'them' right?
In the case we were talking about- I think its harder to say because when you have posts in a thread the sentences are often incomplete or spread over multiple peoples posts, or assuming you know the noun from the context of the manga without saying it etc and it can get a bit wierd. I was refering to the panties just after a big picture of them in the previous post - so maybe 'them' would be ok? but i guess it doesnt feel quite right without me knowing any specific rule- like you need a clearer statement of the noun first to use 'them'.
As for why panties are a 'pair of' - it's wierd isnt it? It seems to be anything we wear that has a hole for each seperate leg is considered a pair. Its more clear with a pair of tights or trousers or similar than with panties that its like 2 seperate items of clothing for each leg, like a sock or stocking, that are just joined by an extra bit at the top?
Maybe thats where it comes from- and panties origionally comes from pantaloons which did have legs too I think?
Not sure why this applies to leg clothing and not something like jumpers which has a thing for each arm.. maybe because with a coat or jumper the majority of the item is the bit between not the '2 parts' bit, and you can have a top without arms - and never had such a thing as arms alone without the rest- whereas with trousers or stockings, the paired up element is the main part of the item and they are sometimes seperated like in stockings. Its a bit tenuous lol.
last edited at Nov 26, 2020 5:48AM
.jpg?1544180736)
