Die Strumpfhosen aus Nylon heißen bei uns "Feinstrumpfhosen", die dickeren, die v.a. Kinder tragen, heißen einfach nur "Strumpfhosen".

Ich habe versucht via Google, relevante Belegstellen für "Feinstrumpfhose" zu finden. Da aber auf der Liste die ersten Treffer entweder sehr zweifelhaften Inhalts waren oder lediglich Verkaufsangebote (ohne Erläuterungen), habe ich dies aufgegeben.

Feinstrumpfhose kennt der Wahrig jedoch nicht. Kann sonst jemand den Gebrauch bestätigen.

@Selima:

Fein|strumpf|ho|se, die: vgl. Feinstrumpf.

Fein|strumpf, der <meist Pl.>: feiner Strumpf, Strumpf mit voller Passform.

Quelle: DUDEN - Deutsches Universalwörterbuch

I would like to thank Selima and elte for their helpful contributions, and thank the LEO team for having at least made a stab. However, errors still remain.

(1) The link for 'pantihose' is still a dead end ('The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.... Suggestions for pantihose: 1. penthouse 2. penthouses 3. pointy-heads...'). And 'panty hose,' the established spelling, still has no M-W link at all. The one functioning M-W link has now been incorrectly placed next to 'pantyhose,' a spelling not even listed as an acceptable variant (though as it happens, I would disagree with M-W and accept it).

(2) There is still no hint that 'tights [Brit.]' can also mean 'Feinstrumpfhose,' which was the original source of confusion. There is also still no clue that 'pantihose' is (evidently) an exclusively [Brit.] variant.

(3) There are now two entries for 'fleshings,' both referring to stockings, both incorrectly linked to the M-W definition 'material removed in fleshing a hide' -- the normal tannery sense. Once again, I suggest (a) removing the M-W link from the stocking sense, and (b) adding a German translation for the tannery sense (see above).

I realize everyone is tired and ready for the Easter break. I am too. I'm also well aware that this instance is an extremely minor deal: neither the spelling of 'panty hose' nor the meaning of 'fleshings' is ever going to sway the course of world affairs (or so I devoutly hope). But if LEO can't even get minor details like this right, why should users trust LEO on more important matters? And why should users take the time to submit careful suggestions if the LEO team isn't even really paying attention?

The long-term result could well be that LEO no longer gets serious feedback at all, only more time-wasting suggestions from the likes of w. That would be a real pity. I would not have risked writing this if I didn't think that LEO and its users deserve, and can achieve, a higher standard.

"However, in AE, tights are by definition opaque and heavier (cotton, lycra, etc.)"

Ich glaube, der Begriff "blickdicht" wäre hier angebracht. "Blickdichte Strumpfhose" ist für mich zumindest gebräuchlicher als Trikotstrumpfhose.

And, hm--us, I think it's great that you care so much.

I disagree that "panty hose" is typical AE -- I think it's more commonly one word. See this website for an example:

http://www.barenecessities.com/csi/dept.asp?p...

Agree with MissG.

Also, "tights" are what ballet dancers wear. They're not pantyhose.

About 15::1 for pantyhose as one word, compared to two words.

My favorite example of the latter is this site entitled "Women's Panty Hose": http://shopping.msn.com/marketplace.aspx?pmpT... .

Doesn't it make you want to go snooping around in their men's shop, to see what'll turn up? Wonder if they've got my size...

@Peter & MissG: I wouldn't disagree that the closed compound is likely more common nowadays; as I said above, it surprised me mildly that it was apparently not yet listed in M-W.

My only point is (still) that if LEO cites M-W as a supposedly authoritative reference, the least it can do is make sure that the links match the dictionary entries. If LEO wants to keep 'pantyhose' or 'pantihose' or whatever as an additional variant, fine; just list the M-W link next to 'panty hose,' which is the only spelling given in M-W, so there won't be contradictory or even broken links. And fix the totally screwy 'fleshings' link, which goes to a completely different definition. I can't see why any of this would be all that hard to do, but maybe the staff is still blissfully distracted by Easter eggs. In their sock drawers. Oh well, maybe next week. (-;

@hm -- us: I'm afraid we can't ensure that all our 'm' buttons will lead to entries in Merriam-Websters, as M-W has not provided us with a list of their vocabulary for data protection reasons. All we can do is link all one-word entries (that includes hyphenated entries), which naturally means that many links lead to nowhere. Also, we can't ensure that the definitions correspond in all cases.
Anyway, we will check the "Strumpfhosen" entries again thoroughly.