|
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.....
Edit: So perhaps I should have included arguments for/against. Edited in new arguments and move them above the poll.
For 2:
- You refer to a pair of chopsticks, shoes etc....and they are only TWO ITEMS. A pair of something is always two (except in the case where it is 1 ex. scissors and pants), but NEVER 3.
- The idea here is that a "twin" is a singular noun, and "twins" implies there are two of them that MAKE UP a pair, as they are items related in the obvious way of being twins.
- How many people is "two pair of twins"...8? That obviously is not correct.
- A twin (1 person) ----> A pair of twins (2 people).
For 4:
- "twins" is a singular noun on it's own, and a pair would imply two of those nouns, and so 2x2=4 people total.
- Seems to be the most chosen "gut instinct" option.
Poll: How many people is "A pair of twins"
(Vote): 2
(Vote): 4
|
a pair of twins is two sets of twins, so four people
how is this debatable?
|
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.
|
On October 01 2009 10:32 benjammin wrote:
a pair of twins is two sets of twins, so four people
how is this debatable?
It could be an idiomatic expression. It sounds like one, which might trip ppl up, but I don't think so, so 4.
|
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."
|
a pair which means 2 of twins which is 2 so 4 obviously
|
On October 01 2009 10:32 benjammin wrote:
a pair of twins is two sets of twins, so four people
how is this debatable?
This is what I thought at first but with how English works it can actually mean either one.
A pair = 2, that is something we most all know.
So... it all comes down to how you understand the word 'twin'.
twin
/twɪn/
–noun
1. either of two children or animals brought forth at a birth.
On one hand, the extra 'S' added to 'twin' can mean two of the same thing (in this case they are both an individual twin). So it would be 'Two individuals', thus, 2.
On the other hand, if the S is used as part of the word (not added) it would be 'two sets of twins', thus, 4.
English has little bugs like this in many different areas. There needs to be an option for 'both', because it can be used for both
|
to me, a pair = 2 sets of twins :. 4
|
A pair of twins is two twins, therefore 2 people, no doubt.
|
My gut reaction was 4 people (perhaps I was influenced by seeing the poll results), but a pair of twins should really only be referring to 2 twins. It's akin to saying a pair of socks. A twin (1 person). A pair of twins (2 people). I suppose one could also say a set of twins; either one implies plurality, but pair is more succinct.
On October 01 2009 10:29 sith wrote:
For 4:
- "twins" is a singular noun on it's own, and a pair would imply two of those nouns, and so 2x2=4 people total.
See, this is just wrong. "Twins" is plural. "Twin" is a singular noun.
|
Reading it I thought "How the hell would this be interpreted as 2 people".
Then again when comparing to a pair of shoes it does create confusion. Still, I voted 4 since that's my first and only real response when someone says a pair of twins.
|
8751 Posts
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.
|
I've heard it both ways. You and your friends spend too much time arguing trivialities.
|
|
|
4 = quadruplets. Pair implies 2. Thus a pair of twins is 2 people. It wouldn't make any sense to say a pair of twins and refer to 4 people.
What if i were to say 2 pairs of twins. Would you guys think that is 8 people? Obviously not.
edit: happy birthday OP.
|
If a pair of twins is 4 then a pair of shoes is at least 4, which its not.
|
As husky said, it's both. It all depends on which way you use it.
|
On October 01 2009 10:37 jello_biafra wrote:
A pair of twins is two twins, therefore 2 people, no doubt.
Yes, this.
A pair indicates its two, twin"s" indicates its plural.
Just as someone mentioned about shoes - You dont say "a pair of shoe", you say "a pair of shoes" to indicate plural.
There is actually nothing in the word "twin" in itself that indicates 2 people, only as the description above says - one of two, (not both). Only when you put it in context like "they are twins" you get the indication that it is involving 2 people.
|
2, without a doubt. I have a pair of shoes, socks, glasses.
|
People usually refer to 2 twins so I think a pair of twins is just 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
