EPTA pair of twins? - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
| ||
|
Probe.
United States877 Posts
On October 01 2009 12:36 L wrote: Hey guys, I have a Pair of Scissors. How many Scissors do I have? You have exactly 1 pair. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On October 01 2009 12:36 L wrote: Hey guys, I have a Pair of Scissors. How many Scissors do I have? 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
| ||
|
0cz3c
United States564 Posts
| ||
|
Zurles
United Kingdom1659 Posts
| ||
|
ultramagnetics
Poland215 Posts
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
| ||
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
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
Braavos36402 Posts
| ||
|
jfazz
Australia672 Posts
| ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
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
| ||
|
bluemanrocks
United States304 Posts
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
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
On October 01 2009 12:42 Mora wrote: 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 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
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
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. Then it's either grammatically or logically incorrect. Is a starfish a fish? | ||
|
SmokeMaxX
United States17 Posts
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
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. | ||
| ||
