I voted ‘other’. I almost always say ‘trousers’ but use the word ‘britches’ if I ever have occasions to say someone is too big for his …
Only in a joking way.
I grew up in rural Alabama and heard people use the words britches, but I always say pants.
Skeletons ain’t got nowhere to stick their money
Nobody makes britches that size
“Ghost To Most” by Drive-By Truckers
I was told some time ago by an ex-Marine, “Men wear trousers, women wear pants.”
(East-central Indiana)
When I was a boy, “too big for his britches” meant “overconfident” or “somewhat arrogant.” I haven’t heard it in about 40 years.
For me, it’s always pants. A successful fella from down the road a piece calls his company Worldwide Pants.
I answered that yes, I say both occasionally, but it’s always for effect and not a part of my “natural” word choice.
The last man to say britches in England — outside those who wear riding-breeches — was Sidney Albert Jessup in 1952. A semi-retired small-holder on the Isle of Grain, Essex, Mr. Jessup, called ‘Old Moudiwarp’ by his friends, was born in 1851.
I am British, so I normally say trousers. Pants are underwear.
Having lived a long time in America, I will actually occasionally say pants when I mean trousers, but in Britain this is quite a faux pas. Indeed, in British slang, “pants” can mean worthless or disgusting (presumably because of the (under)pants’ proximity to the ‘dirtier’ body parts). In my experience, most Americans, even if they have have some problems with other British usages, understand “trousers” quite well (even though they may not use it themselves).
I do not know about the rest of your information,* but the Isle of Grain is in Kent. When I was a boy, I could see it from the front of my house (which was in Essex) over on the other side of the Thames estuary.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
*Well, I agree that “britches” and, in most contexts “breeches” are archaisms in British English. I know nothing of Mr. Jessup, however, and wonder how you can be so positive about him.
Another Brit, putting in his two-pence-worth (and strongly suspecting that Claverhouse is funning with us, with his Mr. Jessup / Isle of Grain lore): I have, very rarely, heard in conversation in the UK, “britches” meaning trousers. If I have things rightly, “Breeches” in the horse fancy, as per SanVito, is pronounced when used in the UK, “britches”.
I’m probably on the way to getting into trouble for posting non-PC stuff: but can’t resist quoting a (libellous) little rhyme about the highly “horsey” small town of Devizes, in the county of Wiltshire – England’s “middle west”.
Devizes
Is full of all shapes and sizes
Of ugly bitches
In breeches.
I say “britches” colloquially occasionally, to mean underwear, or “she’s too big for her britches” (said this in a non-figurative sense just yesterday, as my infant is growing fast). Don’t often use “trousers.”
What I do, most often, call non-denim leg coverings, is “slacks.” I suspect it’s a regional/family thing, though, as I can’t recall hearing anyone else outside my family using that term. Slacks are for ladies or gents.
(I’m weird, though…I often call my husband or son’s nicer shirts “blouses” inadvertently. :D)
I grew up in Chicago, and “pants” was pretty much the go-to word. But somewhere along the line, I switched to only using “trousers.” Unless they are short, in which case they are just “shorts.”
I use “slacks” more often than “trousers,” but to me, trousers don’t stand alone. They need suspenders, or are part of a suit. You normally tuck a dress shirt into them. Slacks can be worn alone, generally with an overblouse.
Corduroy changes the picture. Bottoms in corduroy are corduroy jeans or corduroy trousers.
I never use “britches.”
I’m in that bizarre Irish-American zone where “Pants” usually means “Trousers”, but it still always gives me a giggle (because “pants” are underwear.) I usually resolve the dilemma by using the most specific term possible “Chinos”, or “Jeans” or “Capris” or “Cargo Shorts” or “Sweats.”
My Mother is from Georgia and used the word “britches” a lot, mainly in the context of threatening to blister them.
US (Northwest) never use either term. But I voted “other” because I am far more likely to use “jeans” or “slacks” than the generic term “pants”. Then again, I use “slacks” as a generic term for anything that isn’t denim or a similar rough fabric.
I think of trousers the same way. Trousers go with suits. You wear a sports jacket and trousers to a nice restaurant or church. Pants are everyday casual wear.
My apologies, you are quite right, Isle of Grain, I have never been there *.
I see from that link Queen Victoria used to depart from there when she visited France and Germany and Boris Johnson wants to build an international airport there.
Mr. Jessup was not only suspected to be a baptist preacher and a poacher, but had a nice line in French postcards he sold at the local pubs.
- Also I suspect it is full of old weirdos like the hermit with the gun on the Kentish marshes in that cheery John Mills film, The Long Memory **. Never cared much for John Mills, nor Kenneth More: both too relentlessly decent.
** Post War photos of London from film.
Voted “Other,” but I very nearly always say “pants.” The exceptions are for specific types like jeans and slacks. I can imagine saying “trousers” without too much strangeness, but it does seem a little put on. “Britches” seems both archaic and fake, like a Hollywood stereotype of country folk.
For me, trousers are reserved for dress pants, and that term “dress pants” has taken over. Britches is one of those “hick” words that I just learned to avoid, like warshrag and sodypop.
I wouldn’t call anything short pants unless I was talking about a small boy in Colonial America.
I don’t use either term, but I’m a bit surprised that some people have said britches strike them as British. To me it sounds old-fashioned and southern.