1 scissor is 1 blade, and the other scissor is the other blade. you can't have a 'scissor' without the other scissor, as so it becomes scissors. The same is said for pants (where one pant leg alone cannot be a 'pants' ). It only becomes a noun it its plural form.

You can have a twin without having the other twin. I can be in math class while my twin is in an english class. your twin can be with me in my math class while you are in a science class. in my math class, there are 2 twins, but certainly not a pair. in your class there is half of a pair of twins, and in the english class there is my ugly double.

Honestly, if there were 8 pairs of twins (or sets of twins, or groups of twins!) in a room, are there 16 people or 32?

really?

edit - why do we not call it 'a pair of skirt' or 'a pair of t-shirt'? It's cause there is only one piece. Pants and scissors come in parts of two. You cannpt have a pant or a scissor, but you can have a twin. lol

Spike

United States1392 Posts

October 01 2009 03:43 GMT

#64

Fuck, first instinct was 4 but the thread has made lean towards 2.

0cz3c

United States564 Posts

October 01 2009 03:53 GMT

#65

I'm a twin. The correct answer is 2. A twin is in fact one person, so therefore, a pair would make two.

Zurles

United Kingdom1659 Posts

October 01 2009 03:54 GMT

#66

two

ultramagnetics

Poland215 Posts

October 01 2009 03:59 GMT

#67

On October 01 2009 10:36 ShadowDrgn wrote:
A pair of shoes is 2 shoes. A pair of jeans is only 1 though.

I'm not even sure I've ever heard the phrase "a pair of twins." People just say "They had twins."

This person has the strongest point here.

Although I don't believe "a pair of twins" is an idiomatic expression, I believe it is associated with expressions like "a pair of shoes", which is basically a redundant way of saying 2 shoes.

Language isn't math and the people here who are saying "a pair of twins=4" are interpreting language logically rather then in the way that language is naturally used. I think the average Joe would believe the expression "a pair of twins" is 2, and 'pair' is just a redundant term, similarly as many languages use redundant double negatives.

Mortality

United States4790 Posts

October 01 2009 04:12 GMT

#68

As of me reading this, 73 out of 140 of you have said a pair of twins means 4 people. That means 73 of you are illiterate. The correct phrase of speech is to refer to two individuals born the same time as a pair of twins.

Kentor

United States5784 Posts

October 01 2009 04:15 GMT

#69

On October 01 2009 13:12 Mortality wrote:
As of me reading this, 73 out of 140 of you have said a pair of twins means 4 people. That means 73 of you are illiterate. The correct phrase of speech is to refer to two individuals born the same time as a pair of twins.

whose to say? what are you an elitist? do you even know what illiterate means?

plus Mora makes the most sense anyway

Hot_Bid

Braavos36401 Posts

October 01 2009 04:19 GMT

#70

pair of twins is an idiom, it doesn't subscribe to logical rules, just like a pair of pants does not mean two pants. a pair of twins means two twins. it doesn't mean four twins. its an expression with a set definition.

jfazz

Australia672 Posts

October 01 2009 04:33 GMT

#71

A pair of twins is obviously two individuals, not four.

Musoeun

United States4324 Posts

October 01 2009 04:34 GMT

#72

On October 01 2009 10:29 sith wrote:
Me and my friends have been arguing about this all today and the two sides both think the other is wrong as hell. So i figure maybe teamliquid has the answer or we have some real complicated grammar-like people on board who can give us a technical layout of the phrase. The question is......

Congratulations. You have succeeded in expanding your dilemma to:

"teamliquid has been arguing about this all today and the two sides both think the other is wrong as hell..."

Hope it helped, but I kind of doubt it.

BalliSLife

1339 Posts

October 01 2009 04:38 GMT

#73

Would saying "a pair of twin" make sense?

bluemanrocks

United States304 Posts

October 01 2009 04:45 GMT

#74

going to have to disagree with the definitiveness of many in this thread, as i think its a pretty clear both for the answer. the problem that people arent entirely grasping is in the ambiguity of the term "pair" regardless of context. people keep alluding to shoes and/or pants as their out-of-the-park drive-home-the-point end-all-be-all, when really a "pair of pants" though most commonly thought of as one single object, is also debatable in its definitiveness. the object is "pants" and therefore a "pair" of pants can be thought of as two pants, as well as the more natural single object. in the same way, a pair in "pair of twins" implies 2, but the object is at the cause of ambiguity. since twins is both a singular (one set of twins are called "twins") AND plural (a room filled with people who are twins are still called "twins") term, the modifier "pair" can indicate 2 OR 4 people. a pair of twins could be a pair of people who ARE twins to each other therefore implying 2 people, OR a pair of a set of twins (still called the same thing, "twins") therefore implying 4 people, as a set of twins is, obviously two people.

hot_bid got it half right in saying that it doesnt subscribe to logical rules--the example of broadening and applying the debate as mora has done adds contextual information that is irrelevant to the question when thought of aside from context, as is being done here. but the same goes for the other side, as you cannot simply ASSUME that twins implies two people when in fact it implies at LEAST two people.

logic + ramble = it's both.

SmokeMaxX

United States17 Posts

October 01 2009 04:49 GMT

#75

On October 01 2009 12:32 Musoeun wrote:
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.

Is this a joke? What is a "twins"? What is a "snakes"? There is no A TWINS. There's is only the term "twins." Kinda like the Minnesota Twins is a sports team. Twins are what you call two kids born at the same time (more or less). If you have three kids, you gonna call them twins? Twins has a set definition:

Medical Dictionary

Main Entry: twin
Function: noun
1 : either of two offspring produced at a birth
2 twins pl : a group of two off-spring born at one birth

Since twins is defined as a group of two. Two pairs of a group of two equals four. Also, when people refer to a pair of twins, they're usually talking about two- that's true. I thought the OP was saying which one was correct, and I'm arguing it's four.

SmokeMaxX

United States17 Posts

October 01 2009 04:52 GMT

#76

On October 01 2009 12:42 Mora wrote:

Show nested quote +

Uh yeah you can. One scissor is basically a knife. One pant leg is basically a leg warmer of some sort. Then you'll say something like "then that's not a scissor" or "then that's not a pant". Well guess what. If only one child comes out at birth, then it's not a twin. If something is only made with one blade then it's not really a scissor.

TheFoReveRwaR

United States10657 Posts

October 01 2009 04:54 GMT

#77

2 or 4. Language is not math. That is the problem you are having. You're thinking mathematically about something that is not inherently mathematical at all.

1 twin is still one. A pair of twins(because you cant say "a pair of twin in english") would, in this case, mean 2.

However if you established your object as "twins" referring to the "couple"(the pair of biologically identical beings) as a whole. Then a pair of twins would indeed be 4 humans.

In other words that your mathematical brain may prefer. When speaking english , x(a word) doesnt have to equal only one thing.

SmokeMaxX

United States17 Posts

October 01 2009 04:54 GMT

#78

Then it's either grammatically or logically incorrect. Is a starfish a fish?

SmokeMaxX

United States17 Posts

October 01 2009 04:55 GMT

#79

On October 01 2009 13:19 Hot_Bid wrote:
pair of twins is an idiom, it doesn't subscribe to logical rules, just like a pair of pants does not mean two pants. a pair of twins means two twins. it doesn't mean four twins. its an expression with a set definition.

While this may be true (though is this idiom even that commonly used? I don't think I've ever heard it), I think the OP asked which one was grammatically correct. I guess with idiots, it doesn't really matter, but logically it should be four.

Myxomatosis

United States2392 Posts

October 01 2009 04:56 GMT

#80

On October 01 2009 10:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:
obviously 2 people you guys are crazy

"a pair" = 2
"of twins" is just a description

a pair of anything is two of that thing

2 pair of twins would be 4 people

if there was a big group of twins and someone asked "how many pairs of twins are here?" you would obviously just divide the total number of people by two.