<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Track:
I've always thought that calling it "Concorde" was just being pretentious. Some people, not only in Britain, by the way, seem to think it sounds more sophisticated that way, just as they think a "pant" or a "short" is somehow classier. </font>
Where I come from, a 'pant' is the noise that comes from a dog, and a 'short' is an incomplete circuit. What's classy about that?
True, the Brits refer to those garments that cover the legs as "trousers", but only because we call the smaller garments worn to cover the groin "pants." Go out in just your "pants" and you'll certainlly attract attention, even here in accomodating London. But then, I suspect in New York you'd be quite surprised if a man went out in a "jumper", which is de rigeur in London during the winter. And I'm not talking about kilts.
Implying that the British are aloof and pretentious, however, is not classy, no matter which way you cut it. (well, there is Loyd Grossman, but that's another matter. And isn't he American anyhow?)
So, as the English would say:
"I watched the stewardess pant with anxiety as she fixed the short in Concorde's galley."