For the adjective in this phrase cf. delta 810. (The gloss here aims to exclude the possible sense of "distinctly seen, conspicuous"; see LSJ s.v. The noun, a diminutive of chi 320, refers to lingerie properly worn under an outer-garment.
[1] From a scholion on Aristophanes, Lysistrata 48, where the headword phrase is used by the eponymous protagonist; cf. epsilon 1738.
[2] Isaiah 3.22 LXX, purporting to mention one element of the decadent female luxury that offends the Lord. However, while this phrase appears to be textually secure per se (and generates no comment in LSJ s.v. *Lakwniko/s, 4), it is problematical on every level. The LXX version of Isaiah 3.17-26 as a whole is no more than a paraphrase of the original Hebrew/Aramaic; the original of 3.22, in particular, is a list of strange and obscure terms; and in deciding that an original word which seems to mean either 'satchels' (R.R. Ottley) or 'wraps' (H.G.M. Williamson) should be rendered 'transparent Laconian [sc. shifts], this LXX translator introduced an adjective, apparently from nowhere, which is baffling from a substantive point of view. Any fame, or notoriety, of 'Laconian' (i.e. Spartan) women's lingerie would be no less, and arguably more, problematic in the hellenistic age than in the archaic one of Isaiah himself. Unless, somehow, this translator associated diafanh= with Sparta because he was familiar with Aristophanes' play, one is bound to suspect either textual corruption or sheer misunderstanding.