Molotov

A shirt is an 'it' - "What size is it?"

But parts are a 'they' - "What size are they?"

Whats up with that? They are both one item. English is fucked.

Shirt is singular so its uses it
Parts is plural so it uses they

If you had two shirts. What sizes are they? Not what Sizes are its

If it was part (As in a part). What part is it?

I think he meant "Pants"

"Those are nice pants, what size are they?"
"That's a nice shirt, what size is it"

I guess it has to do with the fact we call them "Pants" rather than "Pant".

Probably cause it has 2 legs and thus we refer to it as plural.

But they are connected! Its the one damned entity!

Also I DID mean pants but I'm on my laptop and thus prone to bad typos.

Someone else made a whole web page discussing it...

http://www.open-your-mind.net/articles/Pants.asp

I blame that we took pants off the brittish and changed the meaning of the word.... it's underwear people... underpants is your genitals... trousers/jeans > pants > genitals....

But we're back to the same problem Karj! why not trouser/jean instead of trousers/jeans?

Personally I blame communism.

There are a few curious cases like this (notably - scissors - "A pair of scissors". Oddly, I can recall reading a Peanuts comic where Lucy actually asks someone for a scissor. "A scissor"? WTF? I've never come across it since, but it may well be the accepted norm in some places).

Why is it a "pair of pants", but just "a bikini top", not a "pair of bikini top". Both have very distinct "two part systems".

I have come across both "pant" and "trouser" however - usually in reference to a well regarded/expensive garment.

You can also refer to a single "pant leg" (mentioned hilariously in Calvin and Hobbes, though I can't find that particular strip right now. It would appear that my childhood was devoid of anything more educational than American and New Zealand comics. Australia has produced Ginger Meggs, which insists, via some perverse Dread Pirate Roberts pact to keep churning out more and more crap. I guess I can see now why I stuck with the Yanks and Kiwis), but then you could also refer to a single shirt arm, or bra cup, and that doesn't qualify those for plural treatment (apparently).

I'd wager my unresearched opinion that it's either a result of style preferences for no good god damn reason or as a result of the origin of the word stemming from one which described "a pair" specifically.
While we're discussing plurals:

Attn: Everyone
Stop saying/writing/thinking "legos". You're wrong.

-Cart-"My parentheses outweigh my opinions"-ollomew

Calvin: "I say it's a fallacy that kids need 12 years of school! Three months is plenty! Look at me. I'm smart! I don't need 11 1/2 more years of school! It's a complete waste of my time!"
Hobbes: "How on earth did you get all the way to the bus stop with both feet through one pant leg?"
Calvin: "I fell down a lot. ...Why, what's your point?"
Hobbes: "Nothing. I was just curious."

Noraneko wrote:Calvin: "I say it's a fallacy that kids need 12 years of school! Three months is plenty! Look at me. I'm smart! I don't need 11 1/2 more years of school! It's a complete waste of my time!"
Hobbes: "How on earth did you get all the way to the bus stop with both feet through one pant leg?"
Calvin: "I fell down a lot. ...Why, what's your point?"
Hobbes: "Nothing. I was just curious."

That's the one, but I was looking for the image specifically, so that I could cram a maximum of irrelevant links into my post (I'm rather cynically suspicious that Tak is just trolling Phil and me).

Karjalan wrote:I blame that we took pants off the brittish.

Good heavens. So what are they wearing now?

I hope the Scottish were good enough to lend them a kilt (probably not, the tight bastards).

Edit:

Hmmm:

Zee Wiki! wrote: Various people in the contemporary fashion industry use the word pant instead of pants. This is grammatically incorrect. The word pants is a plurale tantum, always in plural form much like the words scissors and tongs. The origin of pants is due to the use of two pieces of cloth in making it. Pant would actually mean just a single leg being covered with clothing.

Further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurale_tantum

So there you go, I guess.

According to the wiki's source:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pai1.htm

...the issue is simply to do with there being two pieces of cloth used - one for each leg. Two pieces wouldn't have been used for shirts etc.
The brassierre/bikini wasn't invented until many many years later, so I guess it escaped the fate of pants.

Further:

Philondra is my hero.

http://www.transmogrifier.org/ch/strips/index

For all your Calvin and Hobbes comic strip searching needs.

Cartollomew wrote: Attn: Everyone
Stop saying/writing/thinking "legos". You're wrong.

beat me to it.

Cartollomew wrote: That's the one, but I was looking for the image specifically, so that I could cram a maximum of irrelevant links into my post (I'm rather cynically suspicious that Tak is just trolling Phil and me).

Well yeah, but on occasions one does have those moments where you sit back and say wow, english is fucked.

Oh and another thing. I'm sick of hearing idiots describe multiple horde toons as "hordes"...it makes me flinch every time I see it.