Actually in the 16th century, the term hose is often used to mean
forked truncated garments that we would today call trousers. There are a
hole body of them referred to as "trunk hose". I am not aware of the word
trousers being used at all in that period. In the period I work in (18th
century) you do sometimes see the term hose applied to what we may call
trousers, though the only example I can think of (in english) is sailors
trousers. In german of course they still use it into at least the early
19th century. Lederhosen meanind quite simply "leather breeches". (At
leasxt as I uinderstand it, not being a german speaker). Like many things
on this list, some specification is needed. Do you mean how are the words
used today, in which I would agree with Joan, though I try to use period
terms when I can, and if not, when is the period in question?
Ron Carnegie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan Jurancich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Historical Costume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] trousers vs. hose
At 03:37 PM 9/13/2005, you wrote:
I would like your expert opinions on what the "official" difference is
between trousers and leggings or hose. Is it just that trousers aren't as
fitted in the legs? Or are trousers one piece while leggings are two?
Tea Rose
Leggings (or hose) are just that, individually fastened coverings for the
legs. Trousers are one garment that covers both legs and the fork and up,
historically, to the waist. How fitted the leg coverings are is a matter
of fashion.
Joan Jurancich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
