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

Re: What's the singular of hose?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.