|
On October 01 2009 11:13 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
If someone's pointing at twins (as in, just two people), to say a "pair of twins" is just poor English. There's no other kind of twins! There are obviously only two! Twins implies two! Just say, "Twins!"
So is it stupid to talk about two chopsticks as a pair of chopsticks, too? A pair of pants? A pair of scissors?
And what it you have more than two twins? My choir at college had at one point three pairs of twins (=6 people, not 12) in it, clearly there's no other way to talk about that really.
|
On October 01 2009 10:29 sith wrote:
- "twins" is a singular noun on it's own, and a pair would imply two of those nouns, and so 2x2=4 people total.
Um, no? Twins is just the plural of twin.
In "a pair of twins" twins just means that you are referring to more than one, and a pair implies 2 so obviously 2 people. Same way the statement works if you're talking about anything else.
~The problem is in the assumption that "twins" must refer to two people who are twins with each other. That's simply the common case, really twins can refer to any number of people who are twinned(for lack of a better word) to other people(who may or may not be part of the group referred to.)
|
my initial reaction was 4 but then when i thought about it for both scenarios I came to the conclusion that it could be either or.
|
This thread wasn't as sexy as I thought it was gonna be.
|
A pair of twins is a pleonasm dude. If you want to mean four people then you say two sets or pairs of twins not just two twins (or a pair of twins)
Because obviously a single twin is a single person, not two.
Im inclined to think that the 'gut' option would be 4 people only for 'mathematically' minded people. Obviously most of us nerds in here fit that profile.
|
Screw the poll results >.< a pair of twins is definitely only two people. "of twins" simply describes the pair.
|
On October 01 2009 11:54 Tsagacity wrote:
Screw the poll results >.< a pair of twins is definitely only two people. "of twins" simply describes the pair.
I've noticed a VAST majority of people go with 4 for their first gut instinct, then when presented with the arguments in either direction side with 2 as those arguments make more sense logically.
So I think that's why the poll results are skewed toward 4, but a majority of posts are defending 2. We've even got some people admitting they voted for 4 then decided it was ambiguous after the fact.
|
Twins itself implies the duality. Pair of twins is a redundancy and leaves the statement ambiguous. Just say "1 set of twins, 2 sets of twins." and life wlil be good.
|
Um, a pair of twins implies two identical people, but the grammar is poor, as calling them twins is enough, and adding the 'pair' is redundant
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm
Say you have two people in front of you and they are identical twins born from the same mother. Let's say they are John and Jacob. What would you call them individually? John is a twin and Jacob is also a twin, right? Collectively, they are twins. They cannot be twins without the other, therefore the word ' twins ' here means they are one unit from which the word ' twins ' is derived. It is a descriptor.
A pair of ___________.
Twins, staplers, watches, cameras, fans, masks.
2 people.
|
You should never speak to your friend again.
Edit: 4
|
1) Twins, in its most common form, refers to a set of two people with the same genetic structure blah blah blah or born at the same time from the same mother blah blah blah. So, in common usage, a pair of twins should mean pair of a set of two people (replace twins with the proper definition).
2) However, in this situation it seems as if nobody uses the definition as such. People think of if it referring to a pair of two singular 'twin's. Note that any argument containing almost any other noun does not work here. Yeah a pair of socks is two 'sock's but socks is in itself a vague term. Twins, in its most common usage, always refers to two people. So there's the dilemma of figuring out whether the speaker is talking about a pair of 'twins' or a pair of 'twin's.
3) Keep in mind the point made above that twins, in a literal sense, does not have to refer to two people belonging to the same set of twins. So saying there are two twins, you could very easily mean Tom (who has a twin Rob in the next room) and Sally (who has a twin Samantha in the next room). Of course, nobody talks like that. They would not regard them as "twins" because twins usually refers to a set of two people with the conditions stated above.
4) In addition, a pair of twins is incorrect if we are talking about two people related to each other (see common definition) and only correct if it means two sets of twins. Twins already means two people related as such and to say "a pair of" is extraneous and therefore grammatically incorrect. But it can still refer to two people that are not related.
5) But, once again, there runs into the problem of why would you make such a statement? Literally, the statement is correct. However, it doesn't really advance the conversation so it would probably not be acceptable in colloquial language. It might take longer, but it would lessen confusion just to identify the two people and then state that they are twins of different sets.
|
surprised there's so many votes for 4
those haven't thought it through, obviously
|
uh
twins implies 2
a pair is 2
2 of 2 is 4
stapler etc other nouns don't have the same form because they in their form refer to 1
|
Korea (South)922 Posts
usually 2 twins would be implied as a set of twins. a pair of twins would usually imply as casual english language as four twins. ie: How many kids do you have? I have set of twins. or I have twins. ie2: i just had twins. most of the time, if people want to INTEND two twins, they just say twins! if u ask how many twins after someone says a pair of twins, you are a GRAMMAR NAZI.
a pair of twins? most of the time to americans? 4. there really shouldnt be a technicality lecture over this.
|
On October 01 2009 12:18 SmokeMaxX wrote:
1) Twins, in its most common form, refers to a set of two people with the same genetic structure blah blah blah or born at the same time from the same mother blah blah blah. So, in common usage, a pair of twins should mean pair of a set of two people (replace twins with the proper definition).
2) However, in this situation it seems as if nobody uses the definition as such. People think of if it referring to a pair of two singular 'twin's. Note that any argument containing almost any other noun does not work here. Yeah a pair of socks is two 'sock's but socks is in itself a vague term. Twins, in its most common usage, always refers to two people. So there's the dilemma of figuring out whether the speaker is talking about a pair of 'twins' or a pair of 'twin's.
Wait, what is a "twins"? The "most basic form" is the word "twin". One twin. Of course they usually come in sets of two which is why we talk about twins.
I'm starting to get really curious if this is a distinction in usage based on geographical location, because before this thread I have never heard anybody talk about a pair of twins as anything other than 2 people. And my dad has a twin brother, so you would think the odds are good that I would have. For the record, I'm from Michigan.
|
On October 01 2009 11:43 Slow Motion wrote:
This thread wasn't as sexy as I thought it was gonna be.
true that
|
i don't know why this is so confusing.
a pair is two. a pair of geese is two geese, a pair of socks is two socks, a pair of mountains is two mountains, a pair of two [people born on the same day, from the same mother, at the same time] is still 2 people.
It was phenomenal, Mary - the first time i'd ever seen it! Two newborns, born at the same time, twins to each other! But they were also born with shoes on! A pair of twins bearing two pairs of shoes, who could of thought it!.
hahahaha i'm stoned.
|
Hey guys, I have a Pair of Scissors.
How many Scissors do I have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
