bragg[uit]to[s]

The play with the square brackets in the title of this column may scare some readers. But it is useful for me to convey at a stroke that I propose to consider here four forms of a single word (or perhaps two): panty, panties, panties, and panties. We are facing a peculiar case of that fascinating mechanism of our language that is the diminutive. It is necessary to previously explain the indistinction between singular and plural in nouns that designate realities that, being unique, are at the same time double or integrated by two symmetrical parts. They are names of tools (scissors / scissors, pliers / pliers, pliers / pliers), of vision aids (glasses / glasses, binoculars / binoculars), of clothing (trousers / pants, underwear / underwear, underpants / underpants, leotard / leotards ). These nouns designate, both in their singular and plural form – and there is the busilis – a single entity, a single object. We ask an optician to adjust our glasses and when they have attended to us we hear the person who did it say: Here are your glasses. The phrase He left his pants on the bed means exactly the same as He left his pants on the bed. Both mean that the garment was left there, even though the second is potentially amphibological: it could refer to several pants. The construction with a pair of is also curious: a pair of pants is not—in principle—two pants, it is just one. Now let’s get to the diminutives. It is known that when we add a suffix of that character to a word we do not do so solely or primarily to denote the reduced size of what is designated. In addition to the diminishing value, the diminutive has many others: affective, expressive, polite, derogatory, ironic… The ‘New grammar of the Spanish language’ of the Academy certainly added another nuance of meaning to these nuances: the euphemistic, by which The diminutive reduces the effect of certain words that are perceived as uncomfortable or not convenient in certain contexts. And he gave three examples of this: the panties, the little thing, the little bottom. In addition to the dwarfing value, the diminutive has quite a few others: affective, expressive, polite, derogatory, ironic… Indeed. Slightly tabooed the panties and the panties as excessively crude and even rude voices, their diminutives, the panties and the panties, have been coming to their aid as the normal and preferred option to refer to the garment in question. A young boy or girl wears panties, yes, and it is small in size. But an adult woman too, even though in that case the dimensions of the garment are not necessarily reduced. It is the triumph of euphemism. A certain brand of women’s underwear has recently resolutely opted for the recovery of briefs instead of briefs. Finishing off a spot with “Whatever you do, call them panties,” the creatives at their advertising agency have resorted to a well-known resource, that of rhyme. But where they have shown signs of notable linguistic sense has been in the press and on urban screens, elaborating like this: «30 years without comfortably saying that we made PANTIES. We called them ‘panties’ because panty sounded strong, vulgar… But panty is a wonderful word and a pleasure to say. So starting today […] We will call things by their name: and panties, panties. (Underpants, by the way, also a diminutive, are another story.)

#bragguittos