EPTA pair of twins? - Page 7
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Jonoman92
United States9110 Posts
| ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 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. Yeah exactly. I can't believe this is so debated. While people could obviously misunderstand the meaning, a pair has to be two things. You know shoes comes in a pair always like twins. I have a shoe, I have a twin, pair of shoes, pair of twins. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
GuYuTe-
United States550 Posts
Like the poster earlier in this thread who likened it to socks. A pair of socks is 2 socks. It's the same thing. | ||
|
hixhix
1158 Posts
 | ||
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
But, depending on the context, it could denote a "pair of twins" meaning two sets of twins. The English language gets to be context dependent like that, nothing to worry about. | ||
|
illu
Canada2531 Posts
Pair of Twins is two persons. Thank you, come again. | ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
It strikes me that the fact there is scope for miscommunication in the phrase "a pair of twins" is the precise reason that it is generally not used and why people are more likely to say "a set of twins" and "two sets of twins" or analogous expressions. The results of the poll are of interest insofar as they indicate the various ways that ambiguous words and expressions may strike people. | ||
|
SmokeMaxX
United States17 Posts
If I said look at that pair of triplets, how many people am I speaking of? By using the socks example you're trying to reference the singular sock vs. twin argument. However, the people who are claiming the answer is four are saying that twins references two people in and of itself (definition on page 4 or 5). Therefore a pair of something that already consists of a multiple is two times that multiple. It sounds awkward but what about a pair of X? Now imagine X = a dozen eggs. So you have two eggs? No you obviously have 24 now. Now replace X with twins (and twins = 2 people via the dictionary referenced in a previous post). 2 X 2 = 4. | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36402 Posts
i think people are getting confused because they think "twins" means two twins, where the "s" added to the end of "twin(s)" is just the plural form of twin. it doesn't actually mean two twins. the "s" is added because "pair" grammatically requires a plural noun. | ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
On October 01 2009 17:11 SmokeMaxX wrote: Like 90% of the people who've posted on this thread have not read more than a page of it. The socks example is invalid. If I said look at that pair of triplets, how many people am I speaking of? By using the socks example you're trying to reference the singular sock vs. twin argument. However, the people who are claiming the answer is four are saying that twins references two people in and of itself (definition on page 4 or 5). Therefore a pair of something that already consists of a multiple is two times that multiple. It sounds awkward but what about a pair of X? Now imagine X = a dozen eggs. So you have two eggs? No you obviously have 24 now. Now replace X with twins (and twins = 2 people via the dictionary referenced in a previous post). 2 X 2 = 4. yes but everyone and their retarded dog would know 'a pair of a dozen eggs' would mean two things of a dozen eggs there in being 24 eggs. The dozen eggs would be a single object of thought, consisting of those 12 eggs. twins does referece two people, just like socks reference two socks. Pair of socks is still two socks...you have to think out your examples a little better. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36402 Posts
On October 01 2009 17:25 Divinek wrote: yes but everyone and their retarded dog would know 'a pair of a dozen eggs' would mean two things of a dozen eggs there in being 24 eggs. The dozen eggs would be a single object of thought, consisting of those 12 eggs. twins does referece two people, just like socks reference two socks. Pair of socks is still two socks...you have to think out your examples a little better. no, twins does not reference two people. twins means more than one person who is a twin. thats why you can say there are five twins. that means 5 people, not 10 people. so when i say two twins, thats 2 people, not 4 people. when i say a pair of twins, that's two people, not 4 people. the only reason its confusing is because when you say "Pair of X" the X has to be pluralized per rules of english grammer. "pair of twins" actually means a pair of [person who is a twin] | ||
|
SilverSkyLark
Philippines8437 Posts
| ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
| ||
|
zergnewb
United States816 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44239 Posts
| ||
|
CFDragon
United States304 Posts
| ||
|
Ota Solgryn
Denmark2011 Posts
On October 01 2009 11:14 .risingdragoon wrote: the truth is you're both right a twin = 1, meaning 1 half part of twins twins = 2 obviously a pair of twins = 2 x twins (2) = 4 get it? So.. by your logic: a shoe = 1 shoes = 2+ a pair of shoes = 2x 2+ shoes = 4+ shoes So, you are wrong. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
you guys are a pair of dummies | ||
| ||
