The English Language

I got the following comment from Roobeedoo yesterday. It was about my use of the word "PANTS".

"Boot camp, that's what you need! By the way "pants" are "underpants" over here, and FL has every intention not to go commando (so no boot camp for him?!)"

Clearly, the British don't know how to use the English language. As my logical source, I cite the fact that the US established the standard for English conversation in Hollywood, California in about 1932 with some little things they called "movies". (The British still use some other word.... sounds like FILLUMS or something.)

But back to the subject at hand:

You see, the word "under" is a modifier of the word "pants". Therefore, in common British use "pants" and "underpants" are diametrically opposed nouns. How can one have "underpants" under your "underpants" if one of them becomes the "interpants" and one of them is clearly the "underpant". Are both of them "underpants" if one has on "pants"? Does this eliminate the "interpant" issue and simply make one "warm"?

Or does this mean that "pants" are underpants, but breeches are overpants? Can't one say overpants and underpants? If pants are underpants, how is that possible if one doesn't have any pants under which one can keep one's underpants?

Is anyone else seeing where this is going? It's all so confusing. No wonder there are kilts.

(Completely tongue in cheek, just in case the British don't "get it".) (Come to think of it, "get it" probably means something besides understand in Britain.)

Good night.