It’s a nice pant

You know, there are some things that have been bothering me for some time, so I am just going to get them off my chest.

I hate it when people use the word “pant” as a noun. This is usually a marketing thing, but it is seeping into the usage of individuals. For example: “It’s a great pant.” I believe Express– or is it Limited Express? Someone “Express” is advertising “The Editor’s Pant” in their storefront windows. To be honest, I prefer “trousers,” but I know I am fighting a losing battle there.

I also hate it when advertisers (again) use “baby” to refer to all babies. Old Navy is the biggest culprit: “For Men, Women, and Baby.” Um, well, you see, Old Navy, just as there is more than one man, and more than one woman, your clothes are also perfect for multiple babies. So the plural is more appropriate, really. If they said, “Man, woman, and baby,” it would be a bit odd, but it would be consistent, damnit.

Those who know me know I am not one of those English teachers: you know, the ones where people are afraid to speak lest you correct their usage. Quite the opposite. I am laid back in that department.

I also realize, as an enlightened 21st century person interested in language, that language change happens. And is neither good nor bad, just the way things are. I can deal. I embrace it, in fact. My own vocabulary and usage are always shifting, hip urban media chick that I am. (Tee hee, just kidding about the hip part, oh– and the media part.)

Perhaps the thing that bothers me is that multinational corporations are changing the language, in unnecessary ways. Why should we say “Men, women, and baby?” What is wrong with “pants”? I guess what I am saying is that I embrace language change, but not for no good reason, and with no good pattern. Down with market-ese.

Pants are for babies.