EPTA pair of twins? - Page 8
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
| ||
|
white_box921
United Kingdom967 Posts
edit: my take on this subject shoes = plural socks = plural "Both sisters (2) gave birth to a (1) pair (2) of twins" "The pair (2) of twins (unknown)" This is different, because "The pair" means 2 of ('The' doesn't take any form of number but specifically emphesise that we are dealing with 'pair', i.e. 2, then twins would be plural, and as the number is unstated, it logically translate to 2. So your case would be 4 people (in total including mother), which is true. Not sure how they does it, but anyway. If you say 'This pair of twins' then there are 2 people, because 'This pair' implies within the pair. "A pair sisters [hoho, see what i did thur? do i mean 4 sisters?] gave birth to 3 pairs of twins!" A pair of sisters (= 2) gave birth to 3 pair (=6), total of 8 people and 6 new born baby "a pair of two twins" this is rather hard to explain with only this particular part taken out of context. On its own, super bad english, but I would dissect it into 'a pair of two' (= 2, stating the obvious on the obvious) twins (=plural) | ||
520
United States2822 Posts
| ||
RaGe
Belgium9950 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. this. 'a pair of' is always followed by a plural word. 'a pair of cards' doesnt mean 2 of 'cards', which is plural. So if a pair of cards isn't 4 cards, why would a pair of twins be. | ||
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On October 01 2009 11:23 Kennigit wrote: a pair of dudes = 2 a pair of donks = 2 a pair of balls = 2 a pair of twins = a pair of 2 guys who are identical and related and born at same time etc. I think people are tripping up the fact that twins always means two people involved. If you are saying a pair of twins is 4 people, then what is 1 twin? 2 people? No it is one person who is a member of the set. It would make more sense to say 2 sets of twins or 2 pairs of twins. This post wins the thread for me. A pair of twins = 2 twins = 2 people | ||
|
Loffeman
Sweden105 Posts
 No, but seriously the people who think that a pair of twins means 4 people are just plain stupid. How would you otherwise name 2 people being twins? "A pair of twin?" "Two twins?" that might mean two people who are twins but not to each other. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
How many units is a pair of Zerglings? | ||
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 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. </thread> | ||
|
Gryffindor_us
United States5606 Posts
| ||
|
Piste
6183 Posts
| ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
A pair always refers to 2 items except when it refers to 1 object composed of 2 items. Common examples of this usage (scissors, pants, pliers) have already been noted and we can agree that there are no more than 2 composing items in one pair of these compound objects. X composing items however still results in X/2 compound objects. Confusion with twins seems to stem from an understanding that "twins" refers to an object composed of 2 items, ie a set composed of 2 people. To dissect the flawed understanding: 1 twin = 1 individual 1 twins = 1 set of 2 individuals 2 twins (1 pair of) = 2 sets of 2 individuals 3 twins = ??? 4 twins (2 pair of) = 4 sets of 2 individuals 5 twins = ??? This may be intuitive, easy to use, or whatnot, but it fails in describing situations with odd numbers of people who happen to be twins. It also flouts word meaning (a twin is one entity except in mineralogy) and logic (twins are separable and not interdependent unless conjoint.) It is also clumsy and contradictory. How do you describe two individuals who happen to be twins, not necessarily of each other? 2 people, each a twin? 1 twins? The only logical, condensed way is 2 twins (not necessarily a pair of twins, but consistent with a pair of twins in that 2 twins and a pair of twins both denote 2 individuals.) Anyways there is no ambiguity here. Reading the dictionary assessments of "pair" and "twin" leads you to the correct conclusion quite nicely. | ||
|
bellweather
United States404 Posts
| ||
|
Malinor
Germany4734 Posts
However, I am leaning more towards 2 right now. Just seems like a more natural way to use this phrase, as has been explained a couple times now. | ||
|
Flaccid
8887 Posts
Take the 'pair of pants' thing that seems to make no sense for example. Pants is short for pantaloons which is comes from something like 300 years ago and refers to a set of pantaloons, where each pantaloon was a separate garment worn around the leg. And to top it all off it comes from French so there is even more cause for divergence from whatever norms regular english may or may not adhere to. So it made sense at the time to refer to a set of these leg-wrappings tied together at the waist as a 'pair of pants'. And this usage of the word 'pair' stuck around. In a pair of scissors you have two scissor edges joined together. You have two plying edges joined in a pair of pliers, etc. etc. To answer the O.P, the use of the word pair is somewhat ambiguous when used like this. Still, a 'pair of twins' makes much more sense to refer to the orginal set or pairing. That is, two people. Otherwise it would make no sense to say 'pairs of twins' to refer to multiple sets of twins - but it does. English doesn't have to make sense. | ||
|
Nylan
United States795 Posts
| ||
|
FragKrag
United States11556 Posts
| ||
|
Ghost151
United States290 Posts
this is moronic. anybody native english speaker should instantly know that "a pair of twins" refers to 2 people. "a pair" already implies a single set. Pair is a specific word which means two only, but the numeric value of a set is not fixed until the set itself is defined. This is an instance, like other areas in english' where you cannot logic your way out of this by looking at the definitions of each word and putting it altogether. It's just one of those thing, like how unless a word is a loanword, there's no "right" way to pronounce it*. Only in this case there is only the right way to see it despite what the word agreements may be. "a pair of twins" = 2 "just is" the correct way to see it *You could pronounce most words in english anyway you wanted to and would not be wrong, you'd only have an accent. I am aware this is not truly the definition of an accent but it is exactly how a native english speaker would describe like a spanish or japanese speaker pronounce english words with completely phonetic vowels. Ever heard "olive" in from a spanish speaker? Oh-Lee-Vay. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3996 Posts
Een paar tweelingen (to make matters worse, dutch 'pair' is the same word as 'couple', so there can be 2 now, but also like 6 or 8) Ein paar Zwillinge, same thing I think. But you can say: A pair of twin brothers, wouldn't that always mean 2? | ||
|
Frumsan
Sweden117 Posts
| ||
|
shidonu
United States50 Posts
"twins" is a singular noun on it's own, and a pair would imply two of those nouns, and so 2x2=4 people total. Clearly this is wrong. You could potentially have a room of THREE twins none of whom being siblings to each other. If I have a twin, my friend has a twin, and his friend has a twin, all three of us together would be three twins, meaning three people NOT six. If you still believe the above quote is correct, give me the plural for the word twin, or of the "singular noun" twins please. | ||
| ||
