|
On October 01 2009 14:39 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 14:35 Hot_Bid wrote:On October 01 2009 14:19 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I just read up to page 4 and I am confused as hell..how are there so many votes for a pair of twins being 4 people? I understand this site might not have a lot of native english speakers but jeese.. its a lot of people voting for four because they don't live in the united states and know that its an idiom. in the united states, a pair of twins means two people. there's no other meaning. A pair of twin's could be four individuals depending on how it was worded contextually. IE:"Both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins." It's four individuals in that somewhat specialized context, not two. However, the phrase is identical. A pair of twins. The fallacy there is as follows. "both sisters" is the part of the sentence that applies "x2" to the phrase "a pair of twins"; not that "a pair of" lends that same meaning to "twins". It's like if you say "There are two examples of a pair of twins". Yes, that sentence refers to four people, but the phrase 'pair of twins' alone does not. You're essentially adding to the phrase in question to give it a different meaning.
|
On October 01 2009 14:52 zobz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 14:39 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On October 01 2009 14:35 Hot_Bid wrote:On October 01 2009 14:19 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I just read up to page 4 and I am confused as hell..how are there so many votes for a pair of twins being 4 people? I understand this site might not have a lot of native english speakers but jeese.. its a lot of people voting for four because they don't live in the united states and know that its an idiom. in the united states, a pair of twins means two people. there's no other meaning. A pair of twin's could be four individuals depending on how it was worded contextually. IE:"Both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins." It's four individuals in that somewhat specialized context, not two. However, the phrase is identical. A pair of twins. The fallacy there is as follows. "both sisters" is the part of the sentence that applies "x2" to the phrase "a pair of twins"; not that "a pair of" lends that same meaning to "twins". It's like if you say "There are two examples of a pair of twins". Yes, that sentence refers to four people, but the phrase 'pair of twins' alone does not. You're essentially adding to the phrase in question to give it a different meaning.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I read it twice and gave up.
edit: I think you're saying the same thing I did a few replies ago.
|
MrMoose
Canada176 Posts
2 easy.
if i said a pair of people, would that imply 4 people? no.
same for a pair of twins:
1 twin= 1 person
a pair of people who happen to have been born at the same time=a pair of twins
|
On October 01 2009 14:47 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 14:39 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On October 01 2009 14:35 Hot_Bid wrote:On October 01 2009 14:19 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I just read up to page 4 and I am confused as hell..how are there so many votes for a pair of twins being 4 people? I understand this site might not have a lot of native english speakers but jeese.. its a lot of people voting for four because they don't live in the united states and know that its an idiom. in the united states, a pair of twins means two people. there's no other meaning. A pair of twin's could be four individuals depending on how it was worded contextually. IE:"Both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins." It's four individuals in that somewhat specialized context, not two. However, the phrase is identical. A pair of twins. Actually the sentence you provided uses "a pair of twins" as equaling two people. Both sisters gave birth to two people, in other words, if you put the words "two people" instead of "a pair of twins".
Thats true. But what if it was worded differently?
Something like "Together the sisters gave birth to a pair of twins".
"Together the sisters gave birth to [two people]".
Now the question is, is the first sentence a valid sentence? And if those sisters really did both have twins, is the sentence still grammatically correct? I'm really asking here, what do you think?
|
On October 01 2009 14:54 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 14:47 cz wrote:On October 01 2009 14:39 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On October 01 2009 14:35 Hot_Bid wrote:On October 01 2009 14:19 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I just read up to page 4 and I am confused as hell..how are there so many votes for a pair of twins being 4 people? I understand this site might not have a lot of native english speakers but jeese.. its a lot of people voting for four because they don't live in the united states and know that its an idiom. in the united states, a pair of twins means two people. there's no other meaning. A pair of twin's could be four individuals depending on how it was worded contextually. IE:"Both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins." It's four individuals in that somewhat specialized context, not two. However, the phrase is identical. A pair of twins. Actually the sentence you provided uses "a pair of twins" as equaling two people. Both sisters gave birth to two people, in other words, if you put the words "two people" instead of "a pair of twins". Thats true. But what if you worded it differently? Something like "Together, the sisters gave birth to a pair of twins".
That sentence doesn't make sense. What does together mean with respect to giving birth. Being in the same room together? If so, it doesn't change the meaning from the previous format in terms of what a pair of twins means.
|
On October 01 2009 14:56 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 14:54 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On October 01 2009 14:47 cz wrote:On October 01 2009 14:39 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On October 01 2009 14:35 Hot_Bid wrote:On October 01 2009 14:19 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I just read up to page 4 and I am confused as hell..how are there so many votes for a pair of twins being 4 people? I understand this site might not have a lot of native english speakers but jeese.. its a lot of people voting for four because they don't live in the united states and know that its an idiom. in the united states, a pair of twins means two people. there's no other meaning. A pair of twin's could be four individuals depending on how it was worded contextually. IE:"Both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins." It's four individuals in that somewhat specialized context, not two. However, the phrase is identical. A pair of twins. Actually the sentence you provided uses "a pair of twins" as equaling two people. Both sisters gave birth to two people, in other words, if you put the words "two people" instead of "a pair of twins". Thats true. But what if you worded it differently? Something like "Together, the sisters gave birth to a pair of twins". That sentence doesn't make sense. What does together mean with respect to giving birth. Being in the same room together? If so, it doesn't change the meaning from the previous format in terms of what a pair of twins means.
What about, "Together, the two sisters gave birth to a pair of twins"? Wouldn't that make more sense?
|
On October 01 2009 14:54 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 14:47 cz wrote:On October 01 2009 14:39 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On October 01 2009 14:35 Hot_Bid wrote:On October 01 2009 14:19 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I just read up to page 4 and I am confused as hell..how are there so many votes for a pair of twins being 4 people? I understand this site might not have a lot of native english speakers but jeese.. its a lot of people voting for four because they don't live in the united states and know that its an idiom. in the united states, a pair of twins means two people. there's no other meaning. A pair of twin's could be four individuals depending on how it was worded contextually. IE:"Both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins." It's four individuals in that somewhat specialized context, not two. However, the phrase is identical. A pair of twins. Actually the sentence you provided uses "a pair of twins" as equaling two people. Both sisters gave birth to two people, in other words, if you put the words "two people" instead of "a pair of twins". Thats true. But what if you worded it differently? Something like "Together, the sisters gave birth to a pair of twins". That just sounds weird and intentionally vague.
On October 01 2009 14:58 Kaialynn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 14:56 cz wrote:On October 01 2009 14:54 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On October 01 2009 14:47 cz wrote:On October 01 2009 14:39 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On October 01 2009 14:35 Hot_Bid wrote:On October 01 2009 14:19 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I just read up to page 4 and I am confused as hell..how are there so many votes for a pair of twins being 4 people? I understand this site might not have a lot of native english speakers but jeese.. its a lot of people voting for four because they don't live in the united states and know that its an idiom. in the united states, a pair of twins means two people. there's no other meaning. A pair of twin's could be four individuals depending on how it was worded contextually. IE:"Both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins." It's four individuals in that somewhat specialized context, not two. However, the phrase is identical. A pair of twins. Actually the sentence you provided uses "a pair of twins" as equaling two people. Both sisters gave birth to two people, in other words, if you put the words "two people" instead of "a pair of twins". Thats true. But what if you worded it differently? Something like "Together, the sisters gave birth to a pair of twins". That sentence doesn't make sense. What does together mean with respect to giving birth. Being in the same room together? If so, it doesn't change the meaning from the previous format in terms of what a pair of twins means. What about, "Together, the two sisters gave birth to a pair of twins"? Wouldn't that make more sense? Same with that one. Is each sister giving birth to a pair?
Honestly I don't see where this is going 
|
If i heard someone talk of a pair of twins i would assume they were refeering to four people, mostly because to me it would seem quite a strange expression to use to describe two twins.
and cz they guy above was saying that on it's own, "a pair of twins" means only 2 people, however by developing the sentence e.g. "both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins" it is possible to mean 4 people.
|
What about: "When Paul and Petey Miller met Sarah and Sandy Bolton they hated each other. The pair of twins would spend hours screaming at each other, refusing to see eye to eye."
Stupid sentence I know. It doesn't really sound good either, but the point is "a pair of twins" could refer to 4 people and still be a valid sentence.
|
On October 01 2009 15:00 XeliN wrote:
If i heard someone talk of a pair of twins i would assume they were refeering to four people, mostly because to me it would seem quite a strange expression to use to describe two twins.
and cz they guy above was saying that on it's own, "a pair of twins" means only 2 people, however by developing the sentence e.g. "both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins" it is possible to mean 4 people.
You would never call two twins standing next to each other "a pair"?
Also, the part about both sisters has already been mentioned as wrong. In that sentence you mentioned, a pair of twins is two people. The words "both sisters" makes multiplies that by two. One sister had a pair of twins, and the other sister also had a pair of twins.
On October 01 2009 15:02 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
What about: "When Paul and Petey Miller met Sarah and Sandy Bolton they hated each other. The pair of twins would spend hours screaming at each other, refusing to see eye to eye." I could see this one working though? At least the way I'm reading it. Overall it's once again ambiguous and proof of what was said earlier about how the term should probably just be avoided. "The two pairs would spend..." and then throw the part about their being twins somewhere else if it's important.
|
On October 01 2009 14:56 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 14:54 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On October 01 2009 14:47 cz wrote:On October 01 2009 14:39 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On October 01 2009 14:35 Hot_Bid wrote:On October 01 2009 14:19 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I just read up to page 4 and I am confused as hell..how are there so many votes for a pair of twins being 4 people? I understand this site might not have a lot of native english speakers but jeese.. its a lot of people voting for four because they don't live in the united states and know that its an idiom. in the united states, a pair of twins means two people. there's no other meaning. A pair of twin's could be four individuals depending on how it was worded contextually. IE:"Both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins." It's four individuals in that somewhat specialized context, not two. However, the phrase is identical. A pair of twins. Actually the sentence you provided uses "a pair of twins" as equaling two people. Both sisters gave birth to two people, in other words, if you put the words "two people" instead of "a pair of twins". Thats true. But what if you worded it differently? Something like "Together, the sisters gave birth to a pair of twins". That sentence doesn't make sense. What does together mean with respect to giving birth. Being in the same room together? If so, it doesn't change the meaning from the previous format in terms of what a pair of twins means. The sentence does not make sense, but not in the way you say it doesn't.
Two women can totally have two, or four, babies together. You just have to take 'together' as meaning 'in total'. If you put the babies had by each sister "together" you get two, or four.
However given that a pair of twins describes two babies of the same set, they can not have come from two mothers, thus the sentence doesn't make sense.
Of course that's 'given' an answer to exactly what we're arguing about in the first place. But the sentence in any case fails as evidence that a pair of twins can refer to four babies, since whether the particular sentence does or not depends itself on how one interprets the sentence. That which is open to interpretation as in favour of one side of an argument or another, is not 'evidence' for either side.
|
Zobz is right. The first two sentences I gave aren't good enough. I think the third one is valid though. Awkward, but valid.
|
On October 01 2009 15:04 Tsagacity wrote:
You would never call two twins standing next to each other "a pair"?
No i honestly cannot concieve of a situation where I would use "a pair of twins" or at least if i can it's usually an unlikly scenario.
|
On October 01 2009 15:00 XeliN wrote:
If i heard someone talk of a pair of twins i would assume they were refeering to four people, mostly because to me it would seem quite a strange expression to use to describe two twins.
and cz they guy above was saying that on it's own, "a pair of twins" means only 2 people, however by developing the sentence e.g. "both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins" it is possible to mean 4 people.
uh no?
let's rewrite the sentence:
"Both sisters gave birth to 2 children".
2 x 2 = 4
"A lady gave birth to 2 children"
1 x 2 = 2
"One sister of two, gave birth to a pair of twins"
1 x 2 = 2
"Two people gave birth to a pair of twins"
2 x 2 = 4.
i don't know where you're getting this whole 'add some context and 'pair of twins = 4'.
hell, by that notion: "Both sisters gave birth to a pair of twins" means that they gave birth to 8 children. what? my mind just exploded!
try this on for size:
"A pair sisters [hoho, see what i did thur? do i mean 4 sisters?] gave birth to 3 pairs of twins!"
Is the answer: 12 people in total? 24 in total? or maybe 48?
oh my god i'm drunk and delighted.
|
i was supposed to be at an arrangement 5 minutes ago but am now late cause i had to respond.
and i'm so happy that i did so.
i love you teamliquid
|
i love you Mora
change your country though
|
oh my god, while emptying my pockets to leave room for just my id and my credit card i pulled out my grocery shopping receipt, which declares: "you have saved $17.91"!!
my total bill was $22.43
hoorj!
yay for bargain shopping~~
!
|
Also...Because I got bored and took this too Omegle..
Connecting to server...
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
Stranger: have you seen my dog
You: Serious question.
You: How many people is a pair of two twins?
Stranger: 4
Stranger: duh
You: What about a pair of twins?
Stranger: crap i think i messed up on the first one
Stranger: :p
Stranger: okay
Stranger: so the first one is 8
Stranger: and the second one is 4
Stranger: yay
You: Okay
You: So how many socks in a pair of socks?
Stranger: 2
You: So how many twins in a pair of twins?
Stranger: 2
You: ...
Stranger: uhhhh
Stranger: wait
Stranger: youre so cool
|
On October 01 2009 15:26 Mora wrote:
oh my god, while emptying my pockets to leave room for just my id and my credit card i pulled out my grocery shopping receipt, which declares: "you have saved $17.91"!!
my total bill was $22.43
hoorj!
yay for bargain shopping~~
!
those are lies man
pure lies
|
Mora the way i phrased it made it seem that i thought that it's possible for "a pair of twins" to refer to 4 people depending on the sentence, I didn't just meant that it is possible for "a pair of twins" to be used in a sentence that as a whole refers to 4 people. I only mentioned it because someone above me at the time said they didn't understand a post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
