Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

What's the singular of hose?

Expand Messages
  • Sarah Michele Ford
    I m going with ho just because it s funny. And that s what I ve got - half of a pair of hose. These have long been my next project and I was prepared for
    Message 1 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm going with "ho" just because it's funny. And that's what I've got -
      half of a pair of hose.

      These have long been my "next project" and I was prepared for them to be a
      nightmare. And then I chatted with a very nice lady at Crown Tourney who
      suggested that, rather than measuring and cutting and all that stuff (a la
      Megge of Carelon's instructions at http://www.antir.com/meghan), I just
      take an appropriately-sized square of fabric and pin said square around my
      victim's (err.... husband's) leg.

      Holy macaroni, did that make it easy. I pinned two legs of hose Wednesday
      night. Basted each last night and then tried one back on Matatias to make
      sure it still fit. And then I started wrapping a smaller square of fabric
      around his foot to figure out how to make the foot of the durn thing.
      Which wasn't so hard either... I just wrapped the fabric 'round so that
      there was a seam on the bottom of his foot. The end result is an
      asymmetric trapezoidal leg tube with a seam on the inside and a point on
      the outside (picture a diamond flipped on its side with the top point
      being the top outside of the hose, the diagonal side curving around the
      leg to the inseam). It's cut out to curve around the arch of the foot;
      the back drops to the bottom of the foot. The foot shape is impossible to
      draw (in part because I can't remember what it is!) but once the whole
      thing's together, there's a seam along the bottom of the foot, one at the
      toe, and then one around across the top of the ankle to the heel.

      This method does have its drawbacks: it's far from fabric-conservative,
      and it's not a method that I know of any evidence for - all of the extant
      hose described on Marc Carlson's site seem to put the points in the back
      rather than on the side, and they all have back seams. But this way is
      much easier to fit. ;^)

      Depending on when I decide to bail on work today and how long it takes me
      to finish my documentation for the Edith gowns, those of you who are at
      Dragonship Haven Baronial Birthday tomorrow may get to see them on
      Matatias; in any case I'll have them with me to work on during the day.
      And you should all know that my dear sweet husband was very patient as I
      fiddled around his legs and feet with fabric and pins 2 nights in a row.

      Alianor

      Sarah Michele Ford
      /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
      Illusion is the general rule of the universe;
      reality is but an exception.
      --Jean Baudrillard
      \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
    • Lena Strid
      ... half of a pair of hose. I always assumed that hose was the singular (and plural unknown). Perhaps that s because I think in swedish terms: singular: hosa,
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Sarah wrote:

        > I'm going with "ho" just because it's funny. And that's what I've got -
        half of a pair of hose.

        I always assumed that hose was the singular (and plural unknown).
        Perhaps that's because I think in swedish terms: singular: hosa,
        plural: hosor.

        Does anyone here have a clue whether hose is the plural or the
        singular? And also, what the singular/plural then would be.

        Lena


        Bättre börda på vägen man ej bär än mycket mannavett.
        - Nä, men lite guld, silver, smaragder, vita särkar, öl, vin och en och
        annan galt är inte heller så dumt!

        --
        __________________________________________________________
        Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
        http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
      • Sarah Michele Ford
        ... Without knowing the etymology of either, and when I m not being silly, I actually categorize hose with pants - things that always come in pairs. ;^)
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Lena Strid wrote:

          > Sarah wrote:
          >
          > > I'm going with "ho" just because it's funny. And that's what I've got -
          > half of a pair of hose.
          >
          > I always assumed that hose was the singular (and plural unknown).
          > Perhaps that's because I think in swedish terms: singular: hosa,
          > plural: hosor.

          Without knowing the etymology of either, and when I'm not being silly, I
          actually categorize "hose" with "pants" - things that always come in
          pairs. ;^) Just like there's not an English singular of "pants" I'd say
          there's not really one of "hose" either. What I really have is half of a
          pair of hose.

          > Does anyone here have a clue whether hose is the plural or the
          > singular? And also, what the singular/plural then would be.

          No clue. See above for my anglo-centric theory. Anyone got the OED lying
          around handy?

          Alianor, who didn't really mean to start a linguistic discussion but isn't
          complaining

          Sarah Michele Ford
          /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
          Illusion is the general rule of the universe;
          reality is but an exception.
          --Jean Baudrillard
          \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
        • Steven Proctor
          It appears that Hose is both the singular *and* the plural... From the Merriam Webster Online (www.m-w.com Main Entry: hose Pronunciation: hOz Function:
          Message 4 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            It appears that 'Hose' is both the singular *and* the plural...

            From the Merriam Webster Online (www.m-w.com

            Main Entry: hose
            Pronunciation: 'hOz
            Function: noun
            Inflected Form(s): plural hose or hos·es
            Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hosa stocking, husk; akin
            to Old High German hosa leg covering
            Date: before 12th century
            1 plural hose a (1) : a cloth leg covering that sometimes covers the
            foot (2) : STOCKING, SOCK b (1) : a close-fitting garment covering the
            legs and waist that is usually attached to a doublet by points (2) : short
            breeches reaching to the knee

            Ta

            Adhemar
            ...if she's making hose, does that make her a hoser...?




            Lena Strid wrote:

            > Sarah wrote:
            >
            > > I'm going with "ho" just because it's funny. And that's what I've got -
            > half of a pair of hose.
            >
            > I always assumed that hose was the singular (and plural unknown).
            > Perhaps that's because I think in swedish terms: singular: hosa,
            > plural: hosor.
            >
            > Does anyone here have a clue whether hose is the plural or the
            > singular? And also, what the singular/plural then would be.
            >
            > Lena
            >
            > Bättre börda på vägen man ej bär än mycket mannavett.
            > - Nä, men lite guld, silver, smaragder, vita särkar, öl, vin och en och
            > annan galt är inte heller så dumt!
            >
            > --
            > __________________________________________________________
            > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
            > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
            >
            > ----------------------------------------------------
            > This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > authentic_SCA-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

            --
            Having opened my 40th birthday present from my husband - a kitchen window fan
            - and now on my way to the bakery to pick up my cake, I started thinking:
            What if I get hit in this intersection, and, struck with amnesia, I hobble to
            the edge of the highway, hungry and confused, and am picked up by a lonely
            trucker headed for McDonald's and since I have no memory, I've forgotten I
            hate McDonald's, so I hop in, and he - just thankful for the company -
            figures I'm a middle aged housewife looking for love in all the wrong places
            and he's got several of them?

            GH/TW$ d+@ s:++ a C+ W++ N++ K- w+ M- PS+ PE Y+ t- 5++ X R+@ tv- b+++@ DI++ D
            G e h r* y*** y++ k++ !f X+
          • Ariane Helou
            ... I seem to recall that the plural might be hosen and the singular hose - and then hose got adapted as singular because since it ends in s it kinda
            Message 5 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Lena wrote:
              >Does anyone here have a clue whether hose is the plural or the
              >singular? And also, what the singular/plural then would be.

              I seem to recall that the plural might be "hosen" and the singular "hose" -
              and then "hose" got adapted as singular because since it ends in "s" it
              kinda sounds plural already. I read something similar regarding "peas" -
              apparently, there was no such thing as a single "pea" until relatively
              recently; you had a single "pease" or several "peasen." Of course, I could
              be totally mis-remembering this (heck, I could even be making it up and
              only thinking I remember, considering how *not* awake my brain is right
              now... :-/). Anyone wanna verify or debunk my theory, please?


              Vittoria
              still suffering the aftereffects of the Halloween festivities...
              ------------------------------------
              "I shall find antiquity a rewarding study, if only because, while I am
              absorbed in it, I shall be able to turn my eyes from the troubles which
              have for so long tormented the modern world..."
              -- Livy, "History of Rome"
            • GR Auklandus
              ... Nope. You say pants leg. ... Again, no. In the King James Version of the Bible, when Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego are thrown in the fire, when then
              Message 6 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Ii Saburou <logan@...> wrote:
                > On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Sarah Michele Ford wrote:
                >
                > > Without knowing the etymology of either, and when I'm not being silly, I
                > > actually categorize "hose" with "pants" - things that always come in
                > > pairs. ;^) Just like there's not an English singular of "pants" I'd say
                > > there's not really one of "hose" either. What I really have is half of a
                > > pair of hose.
                >
                > But you do say 'a pant leg', right? So there IS a singular, just not
                > often used.
                Nope. You say "pants leg."

                > Also, I've heard 'hosen'--is that just the German plural?
                >
                > -Ii
                Again, no.

                In the King James Version of the Bible, when Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego are thrown
                in the fire, when then clothes they are wearing is referred to, their "hosen" are
                mentioned.

                Gaius
                Who doesn't know why he remembers this...


                __________________________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
                http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
              • Ii Saburou
                ... But you do say a pant leg , right? So there IS a singular, just not often used. Also, I ve heard hosen --is that just the German plural? -Ii
                Message 7 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Sarah Michele Ford wrote:

                  > Without knowing the etymology of either, and when I'm not being silly, I
                  > actually categorize "hose" with "pants" - things that always come in
                  > pairs. ;^) Just like there's not an English singular of "pants" I'd say
                  > there's not really one of "hose" either. What I really have is half of a
                  > pair of hose.

                  But you do say 'a pant leg', right? So there IS a singular, just not
                  often used.

                  Also, I've heard 'hosen'--is that just the German plural?

                  -Ii
                • Ii Saburou
                  ... Okay, actually looked it up somewhere (www.dictionary.com, to be precise): hosen Ho sen , n. pl. See Hose. [Archaic] Source: Webster s Revised Unabridged
                  Message 8 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, GR Auklandus wrote:

                    > > Also, I've heard 'hosen'--is that just the German plural?
                    > >
                    > > -Ii
                    > Again, no.
                    >
                    > In the King James Version of the Bible, when Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego are thrown
                    > in the fire, when then clothes they are wearing is referred to, their "hosen" are
                    > mentioned.

                    Okay, actually looked it up somewhere (www.dictionary.com, to be precise):

                    hosen

                    \Ho"sen\, n. pl. See Hose. [Archaic]
                    Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Hose \Hose\ (h[=o]z), n.; pl. Hose, formerly Hosen (h[=o]"z'n). [AS. hose;
                    akin to D. hoos, G. hose breeches, OHG. hosa, Icel. hosa stocking, gather,
                    Dan. hose stocking; cf. Russ. koshulia a fur jacket.] 1. Close-fitting
                    trousers or breeches, as formerly worn, reaching to the knee.

                    These men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and
                    their other garments. --Dan. iii. 21.

                    His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank.
                    --Shak.
                  • Jenn Ridley
                    On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:37:13 -0600 (CST), Sarah Michele Ford ... Kind of. QPB/BOMC has an agreement with the online OED which allows members to access the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:37:13 -0600 (CST), Sarah Michele Ford
                      <sarah@...> wrote:

                      >On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Lena Strid wrote:
                      >
                      >> Does anyone here have a clue whether hose is the plural or the
                      >> singular? And also, what the singular/plural then would be.
                      >
                      >No clue. See above for my anglo-centric theory. Anyone got the OED lying
                      >around handy?

                      Kind of. QPB/BOMC has an agreement with the online OED which allows
                      members to access the online OED at no charge.

                      I. 1. a. An article of clothing for the leg; sometimes reaching
                      down only to the ankle as a legging or gaiter, sometimes also covering
                      the foot like a long stocking. (a) sing. Obs.

                      (b) pl. hosen, arch. or dial.; hoses, obs. Sense as in (c).

                      (c) collect. pl. hose. In mod. use = Stockings reaching to the knee.
                      half-hose, short stockings or socks.
                      From hose (as if = hoes), a false sing. ho, stocking, is found in
                      Sc.

                      2. Sometimes an article of clothing for the legs and loins, =
                      breeches, drawers; esp. in phrase DOUBLET and hose, as the typical
                      male apparel. a. Usually in pl., hosen, hoses, hose, also (with
                      reference to its original divided state) a pair of hose.

                      I left out the literary references (there's a bunch of 'em, and it
                      would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used
                      to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is
                      considered obsolete, and in current usage hose is both singular and
                      plural.

                      jenn
                      --
                      Jenn Ridley
                      jridley@...
                    • Sarah Michele Ford
                      ... Listen here, you... don t make me come down to your Barony and whup up on your fencers for that... (see you tomorrow!) Alianor Sarah Michele Ford
                      Message 10 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Steven Proctor wrote:

                        > ...if she's making hose, does that make her a hoser...?

                        Listen here, you... don't make me come down to your Barony and whup up on
                        your fencers for that...

                        (see you tomorrow!)

                        Alianor

                        Sarah Michele Ford
                        /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                        Illusion is the general rule of the universe;
                        reality is but an exception.
                        --Jean Baudrillard
                        \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
                      • Ii Saburou
                        ... Obsolete or archaic? Sounds like it could get into whether you say mid-e-vil, med-i-e-val, or med-i-ae-val ;) -Ii
                        Message 11 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Jenn Ridley wrote:

                          > I left out the literary references (there's a bunch of 'em, and it
                          > would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used
                          > to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is
                          > considered obsolete, and in current usage hose is both singular and
                          > plural.

                          Obsolete or archaic?

                          Sounds like it could get into whether you say mid-e-vil, med-i-e-val, or
                          med-i-ae-val ;)

                          -Ii
                        • wodeford
                          ... up on ... Take off, eh? Jehanne de McKenzie
                          Message 12 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Sarah Michele Ford <sarah@s...> wrote:
                            > On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Steven Proctor wrote:
                            >
                            > > ...if she's making hose, does that make her a hoser...?
                            >
                            > Listen here, you... don't make me come down to your Barony and whup
                            up on
                            > your fencers for that...

                            Take off, eh?

                            Jehanne de McKenzie
                          • Lena Strid
                            ... would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is considered
                            Message 13 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jenn wrote:

                              > I left out the literary references (there's a bunch of 'em, and it
                              would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used
                              to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is
                              considered obsolete, and in current usage hose is both singular and
                              plural.

                              Well, that would explain it. I do recall to have heard hosen somewhere, but could not
                              place it. (And hoses just sounds too wierd...)

                              Thanks!

                              Lena


                              Bättre börda på vägen man ej bär än mycket mannavett.
                              - Nä, men lite guld, silver, smaragder, vita särkar, öl, vin och en och annan galt är inte
                              heller så dumt!

                              --
                              __________________________________________________________
                              Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
                              http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
                            • Jenn Ridley
                              On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:51:05 -0900 (AKST), Ii Saburou ... yes. Under one sub-definition, hose as singular is labeled obs, while under the other, hosen as
                              Message 14 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:51:05 -0900 (AKST), Ii Saburou
                                <logan@...> wrote:

                                >On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Jenn Ridley wrote:
                                >
                                >> I left out the literary references (there's a bunch of 'em, and it
                                >> would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used
                                >> to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is
                                >> considered obsolete, and in current usage hose is both singular and
                                >> plural.
                                >
                                >Obsolete or archaic?
                                yes.

                                Under one sub-definition, 'hose' as singular is labeled obs, while
                                under the other, 'hosen' as plural is labeled arch Take your pick....


                                >Sounds like it could get into whether you say mid-e-vil, med-i-e-val, or
                                >med-i-ae-val ;)
                                There's probably a difference in terminology between obsolete and
                                archaic, but I don't feel like digging through the Guide to the OED to
                                figure it out....

                                jenn
                                --
                                Jenn Ridley
                                jridley@...
                              • Carolle M Cox
                                In German, Hosen is plural, Hose is singular. Now, remember pronunciation Hoe-sen, and Hoe-suh (roughly). : P Gerita ... From: Sarah Michele Ford
                                Message 15 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In German, Hosen is plural, Hose is singular. Now, remember pronunciation"
                                  Hoe-sen, and Hoe-suh (roughly). :>P

                                  Gerita


                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Sarah Michele Ford" <sarah@...>
                                  To: <Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: What's the singular of hose?


                                  > On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Lena Strid wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Sarah wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > > I'm going with "ho" just because it's funny. And that's what I've
                                  got -
                                  > > half of a pair of hose.
                                  > >
                                  > > I always assumed that hose was the singular (and plural unknown).
                                  > > Perhaps that's because I think in swedish terms: singular: hosa,
                                  > > plural: hosor.
                                  >
                                  > Without knowing the etymology of either, and when I'm not being silly, I
                                  > actually categorize "hose" with "pants" - things that always come in
                                  > pairs. ;^) Just like there's not an English singular of "pants" I'd say
                                  > there's not really one of "hose" either. What I really have is half of a
                                  > pair of hose.
                                  >
                                  > > Does anyone here have a clue whether hose is the plural or the
                                  > > singular? And also, what the singular/plural then would be.
                                  >
                                  > No clue. See above for my anglo-centric theory. Anyone got the OED lying
                                  > around handy?
                                  >
                                  > Alianor, who didn't really mean to start a linguistic discussion but isn't
                                  > complaining
                                  >
                                  > Sarah Michele Ford
                                  > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                                  > Illusion is the general rule of the universe;
                                  > reality is but an exception.
                                  > --Jean Baudrillard
                                  > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ----------------------------------------------------
                                  > This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
                                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  > authentic_SCA-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Kirrily Robert
                                  ... I think archaic means old-fashioned whereas obsolete means not used anymore . So an archaic term can be used, though it would sound funny to most
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Jenn wrote:
                                    > There's probably a difference in terminology between obsolete and
                                    > archaic, but I don't feel like digging through the Guide to the OED to
                                    > figure it out....

                                    I think "archaic" means "old-fashioned" whereas "obsolete" means "not
                                    used anymore". So an archaic term can be used, though it would sound
                                    funny to most people, whereas an obsolete word is no longer part of the
                                    language.

                                    Yours,

                                    Katherine

                                    --
                                    Lady Katherine Rowberd (mka Kirrily "Skud" Robert)
                                    katherine@... http://infotrope.net/sca/
                                    Caldrithig, Skraeling Althing, Ealdormere
                                    "The rose is red, the leaves are grene, God save Elizabeth our Queene"
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.