[Ads-l] Teddy (undergarment), Teddy Bear

[Joel Berson]

So "combinations" were items that are attached to each other?

Loss of arms and legs: perhaps not on the garment but on the bear, torn off by malicious, sadistic, sociopathic infants?


Seriously, though, were teddy bears in their early days dressed only in (armless, legless) chemises ... er, sleeveless T-shirts?

Joel

      From: Amy West <medievalist at W-STS.COM>
 To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU 
 Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 7:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [ADS-L] Teddy (undergarment), Teddy Bear
   
The costume historians I've been chatting with about this point out that 
the term "combination" for undergarments that join what are otherwise 
separate pieces for top & bottom had been around since the 19th c. My 
question to them is what has changed about the appearance of them or 
people's understanding of the term that it needed the "teddy bear" 
modification in 1914/5. Perhaps it's actually the loss of arms & legs on 
the garment. . .

---Amy West

On 1/27/16 12:00 AM, ADS-L automatic digest system wrote:
> Date:    Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:26:42 +0000
> From:    Joel Berson<berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject: Re: Teddy (undergarment), Teddy Bear (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> I don't see legs on these " 'Teddy Bear' combinations ", but rather combinations of "chemise and panties".  Perhaps "combinations" indicates that one could mix and match tops and bottoms.
>
> In an attempt to forestall Larry, I do see the wearer's legs that go up to her ... wherever.
>
>
> Joel

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org



------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org