h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In Australia, pants could be pants, trousers, or more colloquially, "strides" (eg. "Nice pair of strides, mate") or even "dacks". Underpants are more likely to be "jocks" (if you're a guy) or "knickers" (if you're a girl). The difference between the two is how we define our genders.

We have a whole different way of using the verb, however. To "pants" someone (also to "dack") is to sneak up behind them and pull their pants/trousers/strides/dacks down. It's far easier if they're wearing tracksuit pants, or shorts with an elastic waist (otherwise it can be quite painful). It may also be wise to check if your intended victim is wearing a belt. The verb "to pants" can also be used in the sporting arena. eg West Coast absolutely pantsed Collingwood. This means that Collingwood were soundly thrashed, and probably originates from some areas where the pub pool rules deem that a player who is beaten without having pocketed any balls at all must drop his pants and run around the table (although in some areas, you may be required to stand on the table and sing with your pants around your ankles - there are many regional variations).

The word "slacks" is used in much the same fashion as it is in the UK. ie. a girl would consider it quite insulting if told "Nice slacks" as it implies that she dresses like a middle aged woman with a penchant for synthetic fabrics.

(great entry, by the way - well done!)

It is true that both terms - pants and trousers are used in Australia. However, there is a technical difference between them. Trousers are pants that cover the shoe when in the standing position and pants are trousers that come down to the ankle only. I originally thought this definition was a bit sus, but it has since been confirmed by a friend who works in the fashion industry.

Some more word for pants..... duds, trakkie daks, underchunders and my personal favourite, reg grundys (rhyming slang for undies).

Well . . . I can honestly say that for thirty (count 'em) years, I have been abslutely unaware of that technical distinction between trousers and pants! (how have I survived this long?) I still have some nagging doubt that it's just the fashion industry's idea of a bit of a joke at our expense - I mean - who can ever be bothered checking to see if the shoes are covered? And didn't "stovepipe trousers" end above the shoe? (I have no memory of them, by the way - I'm not THAT old!!) And does this ruling still apply if thongs are worn? (so many variables - so little inclination to explore them! )

a pair of pants that came down to the ankle would be called "highwaters." This fashion has disappeared, but if a pair of jeans had shrunk and a person wore them anyway, he could expect this jeer all day long: "you waitin for a flood?"

In our school, wearing trousers that stopped short of the ankles would always attract the question 'has the cat died?' I have no idea why - anyone?