18 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
You could say "pants pocket," "trouser pocket," or "trousers' pocket," but 'pant pocket,' while it sounds good, is unfortunately incorrect English. The error is very small, but pants is not a divisible noun when referring to what many call trousers or slacks. You cannot have one pant, two pants, three pants, ... You can only have one pair of pants, two pairs of pants, etc. Thus, albeit confusingly, it's pants pocket. "Pant" by itself is what a dog does when the weather is very hot. Remember that English is basically three-and-a half languages smashed together, so there are a lot of overlapping words.
I don't understand how Pant pocket is wrong, according to the English grammar, I just heard about pant pockets or Pant Pocket, but I have never heard about pants pocket, and I do not agree that it is wrong, it is just a small mistake and the correct answer is not grammatically correct.
This is a confusing aspect of English grammar, and your point is well taken and expressed. However, I'd have to agree here with Duolingo, given my knowledge, albeit quite imperfect, of historical modern English. The use of "pant" as one leg of a pair of trousers is now archaic, though it might be used in the tailoring world. In general English, 'pant' as a noun only means "a short, quick breath." 'Pants' in the plural is the singular noun for trousers/slacks in North America. Therefore, only "pants' pocket" or far more commonly "pants pocket" would be used for the North American English equivalent of "Kantong celana."