Post by: NWR_Karlie on August 30, 2010, 08:11:16 PM
Kirby's Epic... Trousers?
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/blog/23941
A recent preview of Kirby’s Epic Yarn (or Epic Yam, as we like to call it) in Nintendo Power, showcased the story and background behind Kirby’s latest adventure. It turns out that the sorceror Yin-Yarn is out to cause mayhem by turning Dream Land's inhabitants into Yarn. Kirby, being the only one who can try to take action, ends up angering the sorceror, and is sucked into the sock around Yin-Yarn's neck, leaving Kirby in Patch Land. The article included this screenshot from the game's story.
It [...] like... pants will surely last until launch, when it will experience a resurgence, giving it immortality.This begs the question: How can Kirby have any knowledge of pants, or their textural qualities, when he doesn’t even wear them? It’s the perfect, silly choice for a whimsical game like Epic Yarn.
Whether that was the original intention of the Japanese story or was introduced in the translation, this is surely the best garment related exclamation since Pokémon’s "I like shorts! They’re comfy and easy to wear."
For clarification: In the UK, pants refers exclusively to "underpants," with the equivalent term being “trousers." It is also used as an adjective, but only in the form of an exclamation to convey that something is bad, in the form, "That’s pants."
The division of the meaning of pants has come up before, in the context of former mascot for the survey page of former Rareware website, Mr. Pants. In this case, visitors from outside the UK were confused by the lack of pants on the mascot, who sported a pair of red Y-fronts as his trademark. Of course pants was in reference to his only clothing item, as UK English would describe; still, "but he doesn't wear pants!" was often heard.
Mr. Pants, old and new
Nonetheless, the rebranded Donkey Kong Coconut Crackers puzzle game for Game Boy Advance was given a European and North American release, with an ESRB rating of "E for Everyone" and the title It's Mr. Pants. This particular game used a crayon-shaded art style. From Crayon Mr. Pants to Thread Kirby, pants and characterised artwork seem to go hand-in-hand.
Once localised for Europe, the English edition of Kirby’s Epic Yarn will surely experience a loss comparable to “SHINE GET!” being changed to the far less memorable, “SHINE!” of Super Mario Sunshine. I already mourn the loss. Do you think that we have reached the heights of pants in games? Let us know in the Talkback comments.
Post by: Shaymin on August 30, 2010, 10:16:48 PM
Post by: TJ Spyke on August 30, 2010, 10:25:28 PM
I am always fascinated by how even the same language can have so many variations and each one has their own slang (American English, British English, Canadian English, Australia English, etc.), not to mention spelling differences.
Post by: famicomplicated on August 31, 2010, 12:03:09 AM
Ha, etymology is a curious thing!
I always assumed "pants" was an abbreviation of "underpants", as they mean the same thing. (for us Brits)
But now I think about it (under)pants go under your trousers, so I guess under-pants came from the meaning of them literally being "under-your-pants".
Interesting...
Like TJ Spyke, I just think it's amazing how many differences there are between English and Americanised English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_words_not_widely_used_in_the_United_Kingdom).
Also: Where is "Mr Pants Remix HD"? I'm sure that's what most of the (alleged) $375 million Microsoft paid for Rareware went towards, no? ;)
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on August 31, 2010, 03:15:06 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on August 31, 2010, 01:29:06 PM
Post by: Halbred on September 01, 2010, 02:54:53 PM
Post by: vudu on September 01, 2010, 03:03:01 PM
sported a pair of red Y-fronts
Am I the only person dumb-founded by this? Y-fronts? I've never heard that term in my life. They're briefs for goodness sake!
Post by: Mop it up on September 01, 2010, 08:07:47 PM
I think the more complicated thing is that "pants" is a plural word. You refer to a "pair of pants". But realistically there is no singular "pant". Nobody has just like one pant leg. Pants, trousers, shorts, underpants, underwear - all of it is a "pair". You could argue that it's because we have two legs, thus the "pair". But we also have two arms and we don't call them a pair of shirt or a pair of jacket.Yes! I'm baffled by this one. Instead of a "pant leg," should it not be simply"a pant"? And if it is "pant leg," why is it not "a pair of pant legs"? English is so inconsistent!
Am I the only person dumb-founded by this? Y-fronts? I've never heard that term in my life. They're briefs for goodness sake!The only people I have ever heard use that term are my parents, so I'm going to guess it is a European thing.
Post by: NWR_Karlie on September 02, 2010, 09:18:44 AM
Post by: Plugabugz on September 02, 2010, 03:49:39 PM
Post by: Halbred on September 02, 2010, 03:59:45 PM
I get a bizarre sense of national pride out of that statement.
"This was my mother's wedding dress."
"My grandfather died in this coat."
"My dad wore these underpants."
