Sub-topic: the language of underwear
All right, I started this thread, and it's supposed to be about expressions from the other side of the Atlantic from one's own that one does like, not expressions from one's own side that one dislikes, but I can't help entering a complaint about one particular fault in American speech: WHY THE FUCK CAN'T AMERICANS USE THE WORD "UNDERPANTS"? WHY DO THEY HAVE TO USE THE WORD "UNDERWEAR" IN ITS PLACE?
"Underwear" is not a synonym for "underpants": it includes underpants in its application, but does so along with undershirts, brassieres, and so on. Decades ago, British observers of American speech would complain about its prudishness. I thought we were past that, but here we are on a forum where people commonly use every dirty word in their vocabulary, and even here people use "underwear" when they mean "underpants."
Back to the transatlantic theme: I understand that in Great Britain, the word "pants" means "underpants," and "vest" means "undershirt." So if an American describes a man as wearing "a vest and pants," he is describing a man almost fully dressed (missing only a coat), while if a Briton says the same thing, he is describing a man in his underwear. (And by "underwear," I mean, of course, underwear.)
I wonder if Britons are aware that in the US, "knickers" is, or at least used to be, a term for "knickerbocker trousers," for which I believe the British term is "plus-fours," so named for the four inches of fabric that form a fold below the knee at the top of the socks. Recently, I think Americans have become aware that on the other side of the pond it means "panties," as the expression "to get one's knickers in a twist" seems to have entered the currents of American speech alongside "to get one's panties in a bunch."
