|
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.
|
8748 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.
|
can go either way
but 2 imo
|
On October 01 2009 10:42 Probe. wrote:
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.
Apparently a lot of people voting here would. o.O
"A pair" means two*. Thus, I've always used "a pair of twins" to mean 2 people.
"A pair of twins joined the drama club" = 2 people joined.
At least in my experience, no one says, "Some twins joined the drama club," since that doesn't tell you how many. You could assume two I guess. You could say, "The twins joined..." but that's a misuse of "the" since you're not actually specifying which twins are the twins.
* Except in certain circumstances where it means 1, i.e. pants, scissors.
|
interesting:
3. Pair of twins. Among the minor matters that engage some usage writers is the expression pair of twins. Shaw 1987 and Bremner 1980 conclude that pair of twins should not be used unless four people are meant. Bernstein 1971 pooh-poohs this view: "...in ordinary forgivable usage, a pair of twins is the customary phrase." Bernstein even finds the expression useful. It could sometimes be used for clarification, perhaps. We have a snippet from a magazine in the Merrian-Webster files that refers to a doctor surround by 8 or 10 twins. How many people would that be? Unfortunately we do not have enough of the story to be able to tell for sure. Pair of twins appears to be spoken usage, we have no evidence for it in print.
|
It all depends on the context. "A pair of underwear, A pair of pants" How many is that?
ya.
All depends on the situation and context at hand.
In your case. I would vote 2. Why? Because you wouldn't refer to people as pairs when they are plural.
|
nice way to spend your birthday OP
|
Calgary25972 Posts
Voted my gut - 4. Thinking about it, 2 makes more sense but my reaction was 4.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
hahah this is actualyl very interesting!
i voted 4 but after reading ther responses .......
im just confused now. :D
|
On October 01 2009 10:55 exalted wrote:
nice way to spend your birthday OP
Ahahaha it's not technically my birthday yet where I live, and what better way to spend the next day than by winning an argument?
And I really like the "2 pair of twins" argument, you would NEVER take that to mean 8, so it's pretty clear cut. People just need to stop voting with their gut and read the arguments first.
|
Well, you'd never refer to twins as a pair of twins anyway.
For example in a conversation you wouldn't say "Those guys, they're a pair of twins" refering to 2. You'd just say "Those guys are twins". It's definitely usable in both contexts but there's no ultimate answer really (unless there is some kind of English rule i'm not aware of).
*Edit*
These words are just too flexable to staple something to them, they can be used in both contexts. Something does feel wrong about referring to about 2 people as a pair of twins though. Both words times the value of something by 2.
|
How is twins a singular noun? You can't have "a twins". One twin is one person or thing which has a twin, one out of a set of two. Two twins, describes two people either of the same or different sets. A twin is an individual. How is a twin two people?
Either a twin is two people, or a twin is one person which means that a pair of twins is two people. Now, use the word twin referring to two people in a sentence. "She gave birth to a twin?" And that describes her having two kids? No. Please explain to me how this can be argued further.
|
I have to say two twins.
Grammatically,
a sock = a twin = 1
two socks = two twins = 2
a pair of socks = a pair of twins = 2
two pairs of socks = two pairs of twins / two sets of twins = 4
(A set of twins / A pair of twins = 2 people)
|
A twin is a member of a pair of twins.
the end. problem solved. 2.
What's the alternative? A pair of twin to refer to a single twin coupling? Obviously grammatically false.
|
This ladies and gentlemen is why the English language is one of the most annoying and difficult languages to learn.
|
If someone's pointing at twins (as in, just two people), to say a "pair of twins" is just poor English. There's no other kind of twins! There are obviously only two! Twins implies two! Just say, "Twins!"
In terms of proper English, a pair of twins means four people total. Twins means two people, and a pair of duos is two times two is four people is two sets of twins!
Pair of twins... Hey look, it's a few triplets? Wow, its a quad of quadruplets? Do you understand how stupid you have to be to think like this?
|
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?
|
This question is ridiculous. I can see both ways being correct.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On October 01 2009 11:13 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
If someone's pointing at twins (as in, just two people), to say a "pair of twins" is just poor English. There's no other kind of twins! There are obviously only two! Twins implies two! Just say, "Twins!"
In terms of proper English, a pair of twins means four people total. Twins means two people, and a pair of duos is two times two is four people is two sets of twins!
Pair of twins... Hey look, it's a few triplets? Wow, its a quad of quadruplets? Do you understand how stupid you have to be to think like this?
no need to call people stupid, i think the other side of the argument sound pretty reasonable, right? ~_~
|
On October 01 2009 11:13 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
In terms of proper English, a pair of twins means four people total. Twins means two people, and a pair of duos is two times two is four people is two sets of twins!
I disagree. "Twins" on its own could refer to any number of people that have a sibling that were born at the same time as them. "One thousand twins were gathered in the crowd." It's just a plural, not a specific number.
In case you didn't figure it out, I voted 2.
|
what about 2 pair of twins?
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
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.
|
On October 01 2009 11:13 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
If someone's pointing at twins (as in, just two people), to say a "pair of twins" is just poor English. There's no other kind of twins! There are obviously only two! Twins implies two! Just say, "Twins!"
So is it stupid to talk about two chopsticks as a pair of chopsticks, too? A pair of pants? A pair of scissors?
And what it you have more than two twins? My choir at college had at one point three pairs of twins (=6 people, not 12) in it, clearly there's no other way to talk about that really.
|
On October 01 2009 10:29 sith wrote:
- "twins" is a singular noun on it's own, and a pair would imply two of those nouns, and so 2x2=4 people total.
Um, no? Twins is just the plural of twin.
In "a pair of twins" twins just means that you are referring to more than one, and a pair implies 2 so obviously 2 people. Same way the statement works if you're talking about anything else.
~The problem is in the assumption that "twins" must refer to two people who are twins with each other. That's simply the common case, really twins can refer to any number of people who are twinned(for lack of a better word) to other people(who may or may not be part of the group referred to.)
|
my initial reaction was 4 but then when i thought about it for both scenarios I came to the conclusion that it could be either or.
|
This thread wasn't as sexy as I thought it was gonna be.
|
A pair of twins is a pleonasm dude. If you want to mean four people then you say two sets or pairs of twins not just two twins (or a pair of twins)
Because obviously a single twin is a single person, not two.
Im inclined to think that the 'gut' option would be 4 people only for 'mathematically' minded people. Obviously most of us nerds in here fit that profile.
|
Screw the poll results >.< a pair of twins is definitely only two people. "of twins" simply describes the pair.
|
On October 01 2009 11:54 Tsagacity wrote:
Screw the poll results >.< a pair of twins is definitely only two people. "of twins" simply describes the pair.
I've noticed a VAST majority of people go with 4 for their first gut instinct, then when presented with the arguments in either direction side with 2 as those arguments make more sense logically.
So I think that's why the poll results are skewed toward 4, but a majority of posts are defending 2. We've even got some people admitting they voted for 4 then decided it was ambiguous after the fact.
|
Twins itself implies the duality. Pair of twins is a redundancy and leaves the statement ambiguous. Just say "1 set of twins, 2 sets of twins." and life wlil be good.
|
Um, a pair of twins implies two identical people, but the grammar is poor, as calling them twins is enough, and adding the 'pair' is redundant
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm
Say you have two people in front of you and they are identical twins born from the same mother. Let's say they are John and Jacob. What would you call them individually? John is a twin and Jacob is also a twin, right? Collectively, they are twins. They cannot be twins without the other, therefore the word ' twins ' here means they are one unit from which the word ' twins ' is derived. It is a descriptor.
A pair of ___________.
Twins, staplers, watches, cameras, fans, masks.
2 people.
|
You should never speak to your friend again.
Edit: 4
|
1) Twins, in its most common form, refers to a set of two people with the same genetic structure blah blah blah or born at the same time from the same mother blah blah blah. So, in common usage, a pair of twins should mean pair of a set of two people (replace twins with the proper definition).
2) However, in this situation it seems as if nobody uses the definition as such. People think of if it referring to a pair of two singular 'twin's. Note that any argument containing almost any other noun does not work here. Yeah a pair of socks is two 'sock's but socks is in itself a vague term. Twins, in its most common usage, always refers to two people. So there's the dilemma of figuring out whether the speaker is talking about a pair of 'twins' or a pair of 'twin's.
3) Keep in mind the point made above that twins, in a literal sense, does not have to refer to two people belonging to the same set of twins. So saying there are two twins, you could very easily mean Tom (who has a twin Rob in the next room) and Sally (who has a twin Samantha in the next room). Of course, nobody talks like that. They would not regard them as "twins" because twins usually refers to a set of two people with the conditions stated above.
4) In addition, a pair of twins is incorrect if we are talking about two people related to each other (see common definition) and only correct if it means two sets of twins. Twins already means two people related as such and to say "a pair of" is extraneous and therefore grammatically incorrect. But it can still refer to two people that are not related.
5) But, once again, there runs into the problem of why would you make such a statement? Literally, the statement is correct. However, it doesn't really advance the conversation so it would probably not be acceptable in colloquial language. It might take longer, but it would lessen confusion just to identify the two people and then state that they are twins of different sets.
|
surprised there's so many votes for 4
those haven't thought it through, obviously
|
uh
twins implies 2
a pair is 2
2 of 2 is 4
stapler etc other nouns don't have the same form because they in their form refer to 1
|
Korea (South)922 Posts
usually 2 twins would be implied as a set of twins. a pair of twins would usually imply as casual english language as four twins. ie: How many kids do you have? I have set of twins. or I have twins. ie2: i just had twins. most of the time, if people want to INTEND two twins, they just say twins! if u ask how many twins after someone says a pair of twins, you are a GRAMMAR NAZI.
a pair of twins? most of the time to americans? 4. there really shouldnt be a technicality lecture over this.
|
On October 01 2009 12:18 SmokeMaxX wrote:
1) Twins, in its most common form, refers to a set of two people with the same genetic structure blah blah blah or born at the same time from the same mother blah blah blah. So, in common usage, a pair of twins should mean pair of a set of two people (replace twins with the proper definition).
2) However, in this situation it seems as if nobody uses the definition as such. People think of if it referring to a pair of two singular 'twin's. Note that any argument containing almost any other noun does not work here. Yeah a pair of socks is two 'sock's but socks is in itself a vague term. Twins, in its most common usage, always refers to two people. So there's the dilemma of figuring out whether the speaker is talking about a pair of 'twins' or a pair of 'twin's.
Wait, what is a "twins"? The "most basic form" is the word "twin". One twin. Of course they usually come in sets of two which is why we talk about twins.
I'm starting to get really curious if this is a distinction in usage based on geographical location, because before this thread I have never heard anybody talk about a pair of twins as anything other than 2 people. And my dad has a twin brother, so you would think the odds are good that I would have. For the record, I'm from Michigan.
|
On October 01 2009 11:43 Slow Motion wrote:
This thread wasn't as sexy as I thought it was gonna be.
true that
|
i don't know why this is so confusing.
a pair is two. a pair of geese is two geese, a pair of socks is two socks, a pair of mountains is two mountains, a pair of two [people born on the same day, from the same mother, at the same time] is still 2 people.
It was phenomenal, Mary - the first time i'd ever seen it! Two newborns, born at the same time, twins to each other! But they were also born with shoes on! A pair of twins bearing two pairs of shoes, who could of thought it!.
hahahaha i'm stoned.
|
Hey guys, I have a Pair of Scissors.
How many Scissors do I have?
|
|
|
On October 01 2009 12:36 L wrote:
Hey guys, I have a Pair of Scissors.
How many Scissors do I have?
You have exactly 1 pair.
|
On October 01 2009 12:36 L wrote:
Hey guys, I have a Pair of Scissors.
How many Scissors do I have?
1 scissor is 1 blade, and the other scissor is the other blade. you can't have a 'scissor' without the other scissor, as so it becomes scissors. The same is said for pants (where one pant leg alone cannot be a 'pants' ). It only becomes a noun it its plural form.
You can have a twin without having the other twin. I can be in math class while my twin is in an english class. your twin can be with me in my math class while you are in a science class. in my math class, there are 2 twins, but certainly not a pair. in your class there is half of a pair of twins, and in the english class there is my ugly double.
Honestly, if there were 8 pairs of twins (or sets of twins, or groups of twins!) in a room, are there 16 people or 32?
really?
edit - why do we not call it 'a pair of skirt' or 'a pair of t-shirt'? It's cause there is only one piece. Pants and scissors come in parts of two. You cannpt have a pant or a scissor, but you can have a twin. lol
|
Fuck, first instinct was 4 but the thread has made lean towards 2.
|
I'm a twin. The correct answer is 2. A twin is in fact one person, so therefore, a pair would make two.
|
|
|
On October 01 2009 10:36 ShadowDrgn wrote: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."
This person has the strongest point here.
Although I don't believe "a pair of twins" is an idiomatic expression, I believe it is associated with expressions like "a pair of shoes", which is basically a redundant way of saying 2 shoes.
Language isn't math and the people here who are saying "a pair of twins=4" are interpreting language logically rather then in the way that language is naturally used. I think the average Joe would believe the expression "a pair of twins" is 2, and 'pair' is just a redundant term, similarly as many languages use redundant double negatives.
|
As of me reading this, 73 out of 140 of you have said a pair of twins means 4 people. That means 73 of you are illiterate. The correct phrase of speech is to refer to two individuals born the same time as a pair of twins.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
On October 01 2009 13:12 Mortality wrote:
As of me reading this, 73 out of 140 of you have said a pair of twins means 4 people. That means 73 of you are illiterate. The correct phrase of speech is to refer to two individuals born the same time as a pair of twins.
whose to say? what are you an elitist? do you even know what illiterate means?
plus Mora makes the most sense anyway
|
Braavos36373 Posts
pair of twins is an idiom, it doesn't subscribe to logical rules, just like a pair of pants does not mean two pants. a pair of twins means two twins. it doesn't mean four twins. its an expression with a set definition.
|
A pair of twins is obviously two individuals, not four.
|
On October 01 2009 10:29 sith wrote:
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......
Congratulations. You have succeeded in expanding your dilemma to:
"teamliquid has been arguing about this all today and the two sides both think the other is wrong as hell..."
Hope it helped, but I kind of doubt it.
|
Would saying "a pair of twin" make sense?
|
going to have to disagree with the definitiveness of many in this thread, as i think its a pretty clear both for the answer. the problem that people arent entirely grasping is in the ambiguity of the term "pair" regardless of context. people keep alluding to shoes and/or pants as their out-of-the-park drive-home-the-point end-all-be-all, when really a "pair of pants" though most commonly thought of as one single object, is also debatable in its definitiveness. the object is "pants" and therefore a "pair" of pants can be thought of as two pants, as well as the more natural single object. in the same way, a pair in "pair of twins" implies 2, but the object is at the cause of ambiguity. since twins is both a singular (one set of twins are called "twins") AND plural (a room filled with people who are twins are still called "twins") term, the modifier "pair" can indicate 2 OR 4 people. a pair of twins could be a pair of people who ARE twins to each other therefore implying 2 people, OR a pair of a set of twins (still called the same thing, "twins") therefore implying 4 people, as a set of twins is, obviously two people.
hot_bid got it half right in saying that it doesnt subscribe to logical rules--the example of broadening and applying the debate as mora has done adds contextual information that is irrelevant to the question when thought of aside from context, as is being done here. but the same goes for the other side, as you cannot simply ASSUME that twins implies two people when in fact it implies at LEAST two people.
logic + ramble = it's both.
|
On October 01 2009 12:32 Musoeun wrote:
Wait, what is a "twins"? The "most basic form" is the word "twin". One twin. Of course they usually come in sets of two which is why we talk about twins.
I'm starting to get really curious if this is a distinction in usage based on geographical location, because before this thread I have never heard anybody talk about a pair of twins as anything other than 2 people. And my dad has a twin brother, so you would think the odds are good that I would have. For the record, I'm from Michigan.
Is this a joke? What is a "twins"? What is a "snakes"? There is no A TWINS. There's is only the term "twins." Kinda like the Minnesota Twins is a sports team. Twins are what you call two kids born at the same time (more or less). If you have three kids, you gonna call them twins? Twins has a set definition:
Medical Dictionary
Main Entry: twin
Function: noun
1 : either of two offspring produced at a birth
2 twins pl : a group of two off-spring born at one birth
Since twins is defined as a group of two. Two pairs of a group of two equals four. Also, when people refer to a pair of twins, they're usually talking about two- that's true. I thought the OP was saying which one was correct, and I'm arguing it's four.
|
On October 01 2009 12:42 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 12:36 L wrote:
Hey guys, I have a Pair of Scissors.
How many Scissors do I have? 1 scissor is 1 blade, and the other scissor is the other blade. you can't have a 'scissor' without the other scissor, as so it becomes scissors. The same is said for pants (where one pant leg alone cannot be a 'pants' ). It only becomes a noun it its plural form. You can have a twin without having the other twin. I can be in math class while my twin is in an english class. your twin can be with me in my math class while you are in a science class. in my math class, there are 2 twins, but certainly not a pair. in your class there is half of a pair of twins, and in the english class there is my ugly double. Honestly, if there were 8 pairs of twins (or sets of twins, or groups of twins!) in a room, are there 16 people or 32? really? edit - why do we not call it 'a pair of skirt' or 'a pair of t-shirt'? It's cause there is only one piece. Pants and scissors come in parts of two. You cannpt have a pant or a scissor, but you can have a twin. lol
Uh yeah you can. One scissor is basically a knife. One pant leg is basically a leg warmer of some sort. Then you'll say something like "then that's not a scissor" or "then that's not a pant". Well guess what. If only one child comes out at birth, then it's not a twin. If something is only made with one blade then it's not really a scissor.
|
2 or 4. Language is not math. That is the problem you are having. You're thinking mathematically about something that is not inherently mathematical at all.
1 twin is still one. A pair of twins(because you cant say "a pair of twin in english") would, in this case, mean 2.
However if you established your object as "twins" referring to the "couple"(the pair of biologically identical beings) as a whole. Then a pair of twins would indeed be 4 humans.
In other words that your mathematical brain may prefer. When speaking english , x(a word) doesnt have to equal only one thing.
|
On October 01 2009 13:12 Mortality wrote:
As of me reading this, 73 out of 140 of you have said a pair of twins means 4 people. That means 73 of you are illiterate. The correct phrase of speech is to refer to two individuals born the same time as a pair of twins.
Then it's either grammatically or logically incorrect. Is a starfish a fish?
|
On October 01 2009 13:19 Hot_Bid wrote:
pair of twins is an idiom, it doesn't subscribe to logical rules, just like a pair of pants does not mean two pants. a pair of twins means two twins. it doesn't mean four twins. its an expression with a set definition.
While this may be true (though is this idiom even that commonly used? I don't think I've ever heard it), I think the OP asked which one was grammatically correct. I guess with idiots, it doesn't really matter, but logically it should be four.
|
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.
|
On October 01 2009 13:54 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
2 or 4. Language is not math. That is the problem you are having. You're thinking mathematically about something that is not inherently mathematical at all.
yeah i actually thought about that after I said 4 t_t
|
On October 01 2009 13:54 SmokeMaxX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 13:12 Mortality wrote:
As of me reading this, 73 out of 140 of you have said a pair of twins means 4 people. That means 73 of you are illiterate. The correct phrase of speech is to refer to two individuals born the same time as a pair of twins. Then it's either grammatically or logically incorrect. Is a starfish a fish?
well it's not a star
|
Its a mollusc I think
It could have gills, fins, and a skeletal structure that's so hot it fuses huge amounts of hydrogen together into various elements at its core, I've never opened one upmyself. But I pretty sure a starfish is not a star fish.
See how fun( pointless) arguing semantics is?
|
I like Mora's explanation.
|
A teacher is one person.
A pair of teachers is two people.
A twin is one person.
A pair of twins is two people.
|
On October 01 2009 14:04 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Its a mollusc I think It could have gills, fins, and a skeletal structure that's so hot it fuses huge amounts of hydrogen together into various elements at its core, I've never opened one upmyself. But I pretty sure a starfish is not a star fish. See how fun( pointless) arguing semantics is?
It's an Echinoderm
Phylum Echinodermata != Phylum Mollusca.
They're similar though, it's mostly the deuterstome development and secondary radial symmetry that seperates the two groups.
EDIT: To contribute to the thread.
My gut reaction is 4, my logical reaction is 2. So i'm sitting here in a mental war with myself trying to work it out.
|
On October 01 2009 14:12 Kaialynn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 14:04 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Its a mollusc I think It could have gills, fins, and a skeletal structure that's so hot it fuses huge amounts of hydrogen together into various elements at its core, I've never opened one upmyself. But I pretty sure a starfish is not a star fish. See how fun( pointless) arguing semantics is? It's an Echinoderm Phylum Echinodermata != Phylum Mollusca. They're similar though, it's mostly the deuterstome development and secondary radial symmetry that seperates the two groups. EDIT: To contribute to the thread. My gut reaction is 4, my logical reaction is 2. So i'm sitting here in a mental war with myself trying to work it out.
I appreciate your biology education, it is contributing to the thread TL needs something for the people with ADD too. You should read my first post on this topic though. Might help negotiate a cease fire for your mental war.
|
On October 01 2009 14:15 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2009 14:12 Kaialynn wrote:On October 01 2009 14:04 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Its a mollusc I think It could have gills, fins, and a skeletal structure that's so hot it fuses huge amounts of hydrogen together into various elements at its core, I've never opened one upmyself. But I pretty sure a starfish is not a star fish. See how fun( pointless) arguing semantics is? It's an Echinoderm Phylum Echinodermata != Phylum Mollusca. They're similar though, it's mostly the deuterstome development and secondary radial symmetry that seperates the two groups. EDIT: To contribute to the thread. My gut reaction is 4, my logical reaction is 2. So i'm sitting here in a mental war with myself trying to work it out. I appreciate your biology education You should read my first post on this topic. Might help negotiate a cease fire for your mental war.
:x dunno if that was sarcastic or not, you can never tell over the interwebs anymore. Either way, your post clears up quite a bit. Thanks.
|
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..
|
I'm sarcastic a lot but I actually am happy to pick up obscure info like that. Thats not something a lot of people would know, you know? Are you a biology major? You probably shouldn't answer that in this thread though. PM me if you feel like answering. We probably shouldn't use the message board to IM.
|
Why can't it have 2 meanings, like bimonthly?
|
On October 01 2009 14:26 Avidkeystamper wrote:
Why can't it have 2 meanings, like bimonthly?
FLIP FLOPPER!!
PICK A FUCKING SIDE OR YOU ARE A TERRORIST.
|
Braavos36373 Posts
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.
|
United States10774 Posts
my reaction was 4, but 2 makes more sense after thinking about it haha
|
On October 01 2009 14:35 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
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.
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".
|
On October 01 2009 12:36 L wrote:
Hey guys, I have a Pair of Scissors.
How many Scissors do I have?
bout tree fiddy
|
In the context of it being an idiom, the answer is two. However, logically and grammatically, it's four.
|
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..
Yeah it's non-native speakers mostly who don't understand that what a term means is not always what it literally appears to mean. These non-native speakers try to deduce what it means based on logic rather than a common understanding of the usage.
|
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.
|
It could go either way. Like anything else, it really depends on context but I voted 4.
|
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.
|
I have heard commonly "a pair of twins" used to mean 2 people, the twins, and I say it that way all the time. I would consider it a strange syntactic corner to find oneself in if you were trying to get across that there are four people comprised of two sets of twins by saying "pair of twins", but its a reasonable interpretation.
|
It's 2 for sure.
Like the poster earlier in this thread who likened it to socks. A pair of socks is 2 socks. It's the same thing.
|
The balance of the poll is really interesting. I voted for 2
|
United States3824 Posts
You wouldn't say a pair of twin though. Twins doesn't imply the fact that there are two as much as the two things are identical.
|
"A pair of twins" will likely most commonly refer to two who/which are twins...
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.
|
Twin is one person.
Pair of Twins is two persons.
Thank you, come again.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
Words are not entities existing independently of human communication, residing in the ether holding onto something you might characterise as "meaning". Therefore one should not think there is a definitive answer to the question in the original post.
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.
|
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.
|
Braavos36373 Posts
a pair of triplets is two triplets
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.
|
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.
|
Braavos36373 Posts
On October 01 2009 17:25 Divinek wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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]
|
someone check OED (Oxford English Dictionary) and check twins so we can end this..
|
lol i cant believe the 4 option is winning....
|
I voted four on instinct at first, but the more I thought of it I realized 2 is the answer. >.<
|
United States42247 Posts
A twin is someone who shared a womb with one other person. A pair of twins is two twins together, so both people who shared the womb. 2 people. If you read it the other way you're misapplying the word pair in this situation. Pair here doesn't mean there are 2 of them but rather that they are matching. It just says they are each others twin, rather than 2 unrelated people together who were both born as twins.
|
When you say "two twins", you don't mean four people. So why would a pair be four?
|
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.
|
ahhaha the thought of a pair of shoes being 4+ how the hell are people voting 4 here thats just funny :D
you guys are a pair of dummies
|
|
|
a (1) pair (2) of twins (plural, does not imply a number)
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)
|
United States2822 Posts
Pair is what determines the number - twins just refers to what the pair is of. 2, easy.
|
Belgium9945 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.
|
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
|
So Starcraft nerds can understand: A pair of High templars can form an Archon, not two right?
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.
|
Also: What Starcraft unit is born as a twin? Zerglings, of course. Two zerglings from one egg.
How many units is a pair of Zerglings?
|
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>
|
ROFL, this is thread is hilariously long. I love these sort of ambiguities in the English language because it's so much fun to argue over them XD. This is one is not very debatable though as already mentioned.
|
|
|
I'll post just to reinforce the correct answer (2) even though it's already been well solved. (Mainly I'm surprised so many are voting for 4. I want TL to be the best in everything.)
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.
|
It is most definitely 2 individuals. The expression "a pair of twins" may be confused with 2 sets of twins because of the "s" in "twins," but this is obviously just an ambiguity noting that there are two people each of which are a twin. If you want 2 individuals to be denoted as "a pair of twin" then you'd probably want to change "a pair of knives" to "a pair of knife" which is obviously incorrect. There are plenty of other examples I can think of.
|
Since I am not a native speaker in english, I did not vote. There is really no way for me to know how such a phrase should be used. But the thread is really interesting. Can't believe it got to 8 pages.
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.
|
English is a languange full of quirks and inconsistencies, so it's not worth getting hung up on stuff like this. Hell, it's not even a language these days as much as it is a hodge-podge of other languages.
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.
|
How about we all agree that in this respect, the English language sucks.
|
yeah english does kinda suck with all of the quirks, stupid pronunciations, and odd rules :|
|
I can't believe the poll is saying 4 is beating 2....
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.
|
Hmm, you can have this in other languages too, I think
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?
|
A pair is two of something. I think that was already covered. Being a twin is a characteristic of a person, but it doesn't make you two people. You can be a twin and still be alone at times. So, in conclusion, a pair of twins = 2 people. And, as everyone else says, if you don't agree you are crazy.
|
I can't believe 4 is winning!
"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.
|
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.
|
If you say "a pair of twins" is 4, then what do you call the twins that equal 2 ppl?
"one twin"? "those twins"?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
hahahaha, I come back to this thread and it's 9 pages long. I love you, internet.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
Braavos36373 Posts
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
|
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)"
|
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.
|
On October 02 2009 03:31 shidonu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
THERE CAN ONLY BE TWO HIGH---
Oh wait.
|
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
|
hotbid, i am jealous of your ability to articulate yourself.
you are great.
|
On October 02 2009 04:55 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +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
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.
|
On October 02 2009 03:31 shidonu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
On whose authority?
|
On October 02 2009 06:30 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2009 03:31 shidonu wrote: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. On whose authority?
Al Gore of course, didn't he invent English?
|
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.
|
On October 02 2009 06:30 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2009 03:31 shidonu wrote: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. On whose authority?
people can interpret it anyway they want, but that doesn't mean they're right.
|
hahaha potheads at their finest...
|
|
|
Edit: Nevermind like 30 people already said it.
|
On October 02 2009 08:41 Divinek wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2009 06:30 PH wrote:On October 02 2009 03:31 shidonu wrote: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. On whose authority? people can interpret it anyway they want, but that doesn't mean they're right.
Actually, I spoke to a Professor with their PhD in English and they said that it does depend on the context, however, it is more correct to refer to two siblings born on the same day as a pair of twins.
Yeah, I clicked on four people on inpulse today as well, but I guess it can be either/or, but two people is more correct, I think.
|
wow this thread really generated some sweet reponses. on a related note, i had a great birthday and my friends gave up the argument because they are pussys. hurrah!
|
It's prescriptive grammar vs descriptive grammar and it's really stupid to say it can only be one or teh other
|
Did no one else find it ironic that a topic posing a grammatical question began as such:
On October 01 2009 10:29 sith wrote:
Me and my friends
On topic, my vote was for 4, simply because it is never necessary to use the syntax "a pair of" when referring to two individuals who are twins.
The phrase a pair of twins could be seen as a "pair of twin(s)," where twin is pluralized out of necessity because two are present, or as "a pair of twins," where the word twins itself is used as a collective noun referring to two people.
|
A twin is someone who is part of a set of twins. So a single twin is one person, and therefore a pair of twins is two. Duh.
4 would be "2 sets of twins"
|
The context does not matter! You will not find the word "twins" in a dictionary, just like you wont find "trucks", "trees", or "cows", rather you will find "twin" the plural being twins. Twins does not inherently mean two, it means more than one twin!
The only way you could take it to mean 4 people is if you, incorrectly, define twins as a singular noun meaning two people, which has nothing to do with context.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
4. How is this a debatable question? You need a plural noun to go with "pair". When do you ever say a pair of a singular noun?
|
On October 02 2009 11:22 shidonu wrote:
The context does not matter! You will not find the word "twins" in a dictionary, just like you wont find "trucks", "trees", or "cows", rather you will find "twin" the plural being twins. Twins does not inherently mean two, it means more than one twin!
The only way you could take it to mean 4 people is if you, incorrectly, define twins as a singular noun meaning two people, which has nothing to do with context.
If I say "trucks," "trees," or "cows," what number do you associate with them? If I say "twins," what number do you associate with that? Most plural nouns do not natively imply their existence in groups of a specific size. This is not the case with twins. That is why a pair of twins is ambiguous, while a pair of trucks is not. There is no circumstance in which you can pluralize the word truck and inherently refer to two trucks. There are overwhelming circumstances in which you can do this with twin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
