Rosario + Vampire = Boobies + Panties . . . apparently.
Unfortunately, we cannot determine whether vampire equals boobies or panties. I tried doing some factoring, but only got as far as “rosario + vampire = 2 * boob + panties,” which was none too enlightening. One must be careful to realize that panties is one of those variables that seems to be plural when, in fact, it can be singular. We don’t know if that should be more than one “panties.”
Ostensibly, we are compelled to assume panties is greater than 1. After all, it would be a little disturbing if it were only a single pair.
New equation:
vampire = 2 * boob + n * panties – rosario
where n = [0, infinity)
What does this mean? Absolutely nothing.
Also, why is it called a pair of panties? I know it’s an old question, but I haven’t ever received a satisfactory answer to it. It’s not like pants. Pants have two legs that lend themselves to being called a pair. As far as I can tell panties are composed of a single unit.
I think what we have here is what linguists would call “semantic change.” Doesn’t it seem like the meanings of “pant” and “panties” are switched? I think a very long time ago some guy/girl with dyslexia kept getting the words mixed up and others simply stopped correcting the mistake because it was tiring. They probably just took what they were saying in context. Over time people started to use the same meanings for those two words.
Yeah, that’s the way it happened…
Extra credit:
- Blood+ = ?
- infinite Ryvius = ?
- 3×3 eyes = ?
- Samurai X = ?
These are the only ones I could think of at the moment. BTW, the 3×3 eyes OVA’s are pretty good.
Post feed
This kind of stuff is especially funny after a calculus final. Just got to find the area under those curves…
And I’m tempted to say that it’s called ‘panties’ because the ‘-ies’ adds a more delicate sound to it (kind of like ‘cutie’ or something, I suppose).
Just gotta tell myself it’s linguistic analysis, I’m not a dirty old man (and by old I mean young), no, no siree. XD
‘panties’ seems to have originated as a derogatory term for boys’ short trousers (earliest OED reference is ‘If your panties weren’t sheeted home at the bottom, you’d out-jump a monkey’, 1845). The earliest found written use of the word to refer to female undergarments is actually as late as 1908. But if you’re a linguist you may know more about this than I.
Maths is not my strong point, and where I live, ‘pants’ aren’t trousers, so I had to read this post several times.
@CCY – Personally, I thought the “2 * boob” joke was hilarious. Math jokes can be funny, no?
You wouldn’t be the first anime fan to give panties more than cursory examination; so, don’t worry about it.
@IKnight – Nope, I’m no linguist.
Over here (in my immediate area) we tend to use pants as a general term, but one could say jeans, slacks, or call them by the company names such as dockers or Levi’s depending on the item in question. The word “trousers” is simply not used to describe these articles of clothing.
As far as for having to read my post multiple times, I’m assuming it became more interesting and entertaining with each read =)
emm.. love it ))