I think the only reason 4 is winning is because people vote without thinking about it for a second. I can't remember what I voted for, but I remember my first thought was "4" immediately after reading the question and not giving it any thought.

dan1st

Malaysia399 Posts

October 01 2009 18:08 GMT

#162

If you say "a pair of twins" is 4, then what do you call the twins that equal 2 ppl?
"one twin"? "those twins"?

United States6173 Posts

October 01 2009 18:24 GMT

#163

English is dominated by vernacular...which in this case allows for it to be either two or four depending on the context.

Get over it.

ShaperofDreams

Canada2492 Posts

October 01 2009 18:25 GMT

#164

It's awesome that this thread is nine pages long.

by the way a pair of twins is two people, like a pair of shoes or a pair of pants.

About the scissors and pants thing, they are only reffered to as "a pair of" because they consist of two of something. A pair of scissors has two blades, a pair of pants has two pant legs.

Probe.

United States877 Posts

October 01 2009 18:28 GMT

#165

I know it's 2 but i voted 4 just to confuse people into thinking more people believe it's 4. Gotta keep the argument alive.

3clipse

Canada2555 Posts

October 01 2009 18:30 GMT

#166

hahahaha, I come back to this thread and it's 9 pages long. I love you, internet.

shidonu

United States50 Posts

October 01 2009 18:31 GMT

#167

On October 02 2009 03:24 PH wrote:
English is dominated by vernacular...which in this case allows for it to be either two or four depending on the context.

Get over it.

Nope it can only be two.

Zallatik

United States64 Posts

October 01 2009 18:49 GMT

#168

My initial reaction was 4, but after thinking about it for a minute, anything but 2 would be inconsistent with the logic of the language. Despite our tendency to talk about twins in the plural, "twin" is a singular noun as the OP pointed out. Thus, saying that a pair of twins isn't 2 would violate the definition of "pair".

Thanks for the question, I enjoy untangling these little semantic puzzles.

StorrZerg

United States13922 Posts

October 01 2009 18:52 GMT

#169

On October 01 2009 10:33 Psyonic_Reaver wrote:
Yep. A set of twins is 2 people. A pair of twins is two sets of twins, hence 4 people. By the way, I'm a twin and this is how I think of it.

Does your twin play starcraft?

Johnny B

United States76 Posts

October 01 2009 18:52 GMT

#170

I read the question and thought, "A pair of twins. I think that's four people." Then I read the arguments and thought for a bit and decided, "I was wrong. Now I think it's two people," and I voted for "2." In my opinion, some people haven't figured out that they are wrong and should move into the "2" camp. However, I respect the opposing interpretation even though I disagree with it.

Question for the "4" camp: is there a difference between the phrases "pair of twins" and "set of twins"? I believe there really isn't, except that "pair" seems redundant. In my opinion, a set of triplets = a trio of triplets, and a set of twins = a pair of twins.

Hot_Bid

Braavos36402 Posts

October 01 2009 19:02 GMT

#171

pair means two of something, its not a multiplier. the "s" at the end of the noun is just a pluralization. i.e. a pair of a pairs is how many?

because according to the logic of people who voted 4, a "pair of pairs" = 8. that doesn't make sense. a pair of pairs = 4 people. the "s" tacked onto the noun "twin" is just to satisfy a grammatical rule*, it doesn't indicate double the amount of the noun.

* the rule is when you say "a pair of X," you pluralize X. the pluralization doesn't mean theres 2 of X, its just the plural form of it

Machine leg

Sweden52 Posts

October 01 2009 19:11 GMT

#172

sorry for tldr

pair of shoes = shoe + shoe
pair of socks= sock + sock
pair of twins = twin + twin

I see it as 2 people.

4 people sayers see "pair of twins = twins(twin+twin)+twins(twin+twin)"

Ry-Masta-T

United States478 Posts

October 01 2009 19:21 GMT

#173

While reading hotbid's post i found myself staring at "pair" for so long that I had one of those "wait, that's not really how it's spelled, is it?" moments.

Nylan

United States795 Posts

October 01 2009 19:27 GMT

#174

On October 02 2009 03:31 shidonu wrote:

Show nested quote +

Nope it can only be two.

THERE CAN ONLY BE TWO HIGH---

Oh wait.

Mora

Canada5235 Posts

October 01 2009 19:55 GMT

#175

On October 02 2009 04:21 Ry-Masta-T wrote:
While reading hotbid's post i found myself staring at "pair" for so long that I had one of those "wait, that's not really how it's spelled, is it?" moments.

oh my god this happened to me too - but with twin..

is twin really a word? whhhaaaa? lol

Mora

Canada5235 Posts

October 01 2009 19:56 GMT

#176

hotbid, i am jealous of your ability to articulate yourself.

you are great.

Lemonwalrus

United States5465 Posts

October 01 2009 21:29 GMT

#177

On October 02 2009 04:55 Mora wrote:

Show nested quote +

oh my god this happened to me too - but with twin..

is twin really a word? whhhaaaa? lol

haha yeah I asked my friends this question just to get a different perspective (and because 2 of them are english majors and I figured they could explain the misunderstanding) and I said/heard twin so many times that it started losing its meaning.

United States6173 Posts

October 01 2009 21:30 GMT

#178

On October 02 2009 03:31 shidonu wrote:

Show nested quote +

Nope it can only be two.

On whose authority?

shidonu

United States50 Posts

October 01 2009 21:42 GMT

#179

On October 02 2009 06:30 PH wrote:

Show nested quote +

On whose authority?

Al Gore of course, didn't he invent English?

CharlieMurphy

United States22895 Posts

October 01 2009 21:43 GMT

#180

pair of twins is 2 people based on examples given with the exception of scissors and pants (which are actually also 2 things, just put together). A pair is always two, and the 's' at the end is always present in any example.

If you mean 4 people, you would have to say two pair of twins.