4 ms·

I don’t get it.

by sul_tasto 5y ago

I don’t get it.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
UK english: pants == underwear US english: pants == trousers
- sandworm101 5y ago
  "Pants" can also mean that something is ridiculous. There was story a while ago about a Chinese building that looked like a pair of trousers. "The building is pants" means that the building is silly, not just that it looks like pants. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-20526220 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-20526220
  - joncrocks 5y ago
    It's more like rubbish/bad/not very good.
    - kingcharles 5y ago
      This. "Pants" as an adjective is a synonym for "rubbish".
- OJFord 5y ago
  I think they mean they don't get the joke even knowing the correct interpretation. (I'm British so read it as underwear naturally, and also don't get it.)
  - zuminator 5y ago
    I don't think it's meant to be a joke with a punchline, more like an absurdly comical Dr. Who-esque situation. "You think you had a bad day? Well, I..."
  - everybodyknows 5y ago
    Suppose the speaker is female.
    - kwhitefoot 5y ago
      Why? It's at least equally awkward to suddenly find your house full of soldiers while you are in your underwear whether you are male or female. In fact I would say that it would be more embarrassing for many men. Male underwear is not really meant for public display.
      - OJFord 5y ago
        Oh - is full of soldiers. Maybe I'm just tired, but for some reason the lack of 'is' made it seem more distant and I didn't grok that the speaker was in the house with the soldiers (and no trousers on). Or I just tied up looking for a 'joke'.
- diebeforei485 5y ago
  In the Harry Potter books, when Harry is watching a flashback scene where Snape is being bullied, the last line ('Who wants to see me take off Snivelly's pants?') - is the same in the US and UK versions of the books. That scene is meant to make the reader feel very uneasy (and it makes Harry quite depressed). But in the UK English edition, despite using the same words, the scene is far worse.
  - ncpa-cpl 5y ago
    Definitely. I hadn't noticed that. When I read that book I understood as American English.
  - watersb 5y ago
    A few scenes in which it's important to note that someone is "in their trainers". American English, this is nearly meaningless noise. Possibly some sort of orthodontic apparatus? Trainers == "Sneakers", casual athletic shoes.
  - bradknowles 5y ago
    But the funny thing is that the act of “pantsing someone” is actually the same in both dialects. In American English, you’re taking off their pants to expose them in their underwear. In British English, you’re taking off their trousers to expose them in their pants. This is just one of many weird, weird, hilarious things about the similarities and differences between the two dialects.
- kgeist 5y ago
  >UK english: pants == underwear >US english: pants == trousers To further complicate matters, Russian borrowed "trousers" with the meaning "underwear"
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    That's hilarious.

I don’t get it.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

UK english: pants == underwear US english: pants == trousers

sandworm101 5y ago
"Pants" can also mean that something is ridiculous. There was story a while ago about a Chinese building that looked like a pair of trousers. "The building is pants" means that the building is silly, not just that it looks like pants. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-20526220 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-20526220
- joncrocks 5y ago
  It's more like rubbish/bad/not very good.
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    This. "Pants" as an adjective is a synonym for "rubbish".
OJFord 5y ago
I think they mean they don't get the joke even knowing the correct interpretation. (I'm British so read it as underwear naturally, and also don't get it.)
- zuminator 5y ago
  I don't think it's meant to be a joke with a punchline, more like an absurdly comical Dr. Who-esque situation. "You think you had a bad day? Well, I..."
- everybodyknows 5y ago
  Suppose the speaker is female.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    Why? It's at least equally awkward to suddenly find your house full of soldiers while you are in your underwear whether you are male or female. In fact I would say that it would be more embarrassing for many men. Male underwear is not really meant for public display.
    - OJFord 5y ago
      Oh - is full of soldiers. Maybe I'm just tired, but for some reason the lack of 'is' made it seem more distant and I didn't grok that the speaker was in the house with the soldiers (and no trousers on). Or I just tied up looking for a 'joke'.
diebeforei485 5y ago
In the Harry Potter books, when Harry is watching a flashback scene where Snape is being bullied, the last line ('Who wants to see me take off Snivelly's pants?') - is the same in the US and UK versions of the books. That scene is meant to make the reader feel very uneasy (and it makes Harry quite depressed). But in the UK English edition, despite using the same words, the scene is far worse.
- ncpa-cpl 5y ago
  Definitely. I hadn't noticed that. When I read that book I understood as American English.
- watersb 5y ago
  A few scenes in which it's important to note that someone is "in their trainers". American English, this is nearly meaningless noise. Possibly some sort of orthodontic apparatus? Trainers == "Sneakers", casual athletic shoes.
- bradknowles 5y ago
  But the funny thing is that the act of “pantsing someone” is actually the same in both dialects. In American English, you’re taking off their pants to expose them in their underwear. In British English, you’re taking off their trousers to expose them in their pants. This is just one of many weird, weird, hilarious things about the similarities and differences between the two dialects.
kgeist 5y ago
>UK english: pants == underwear >US english: pants == trousers To further complicate matters, Russian borrowed "trousers" with the meaning "underwear"
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  That's hilarious.