Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"a lederhose"

Would it not still be lederhosen? Like trousers and not trouser.

Although there is a place called Lederhose, so my etymology might be wrong, but Google isnt giving any trouser based results for Lederhose.

Disclaimer, my German is nearly non existent.

„Lederhose“ is correct in German. „Lederhosen“ is just the plural.

If using the word in English texts “lederhosen” is in a sense correct, though, also when only referring to a single one. This is a case where the loan word was slightly adopted, no doubt to bring it more into line with the convention in the English language of using plural for trousers.

That convention doesn’t exist in German, except when using English loan words („Jeans“, „Shorts“, „Boxershorts“).

Ok thanks.

BTW the plural comes from each 'trouser' originally being separate and held at the waist with a belt, like chaps.

I know – I think every English teacher is obligated to mention this fact when teaching English and teaching you wardrobe-related vocabulary.

no "lederhose" is correct, "lederhosen" would mean at least two of them. German doesn't share the peculiar feature of English where you refer to a thing in plural if it is made to contain two legs.

Now for the fun part, lederhosen are mostly a Bavarian thing and AFAIK in Bavarian you'd say lederhos'n. This is still however the singular form. So it is still this lederhos'n vs. these trousers.

Disclaimer, my Bavarian is nearly non existent.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact