# a pair of people



## hedgy

can you say "a pair of people"?


----------



## blasita

Yes, it is correct. But I think it would depend on context; you may need 'a couple', etc.

What's the context, please?


----------



## hedgy

i spoke to ... people at the bus stop
a few
a pair of
much
another
the answer is *a few*, but why not *a pair of*?


----------



## blasita

Thanks, Judith.

Well, I think that _a pair_ usually refers to things or people who have something in common or e.g. are doing something together. It does not sound good to me to say 'a pair _of people_' here but I'd say, for example, 'two people' instead. Of course, 'a few' is fine.

But let's see what native speakers say.


----------



## chicoguapo16

I agree with blasita. Out of the options given, 'a few' is the only one that makes sense. Only _a_ _few_ things come to mind when I think of "a pair of" and they are "a pair of pants," "a pair of socks," and "a pair of shoes," which all refer to articles of clothing.


----------



## k-in-sc

Agree. You can say of two people that "they make quite a pair," but it's because they have shared characteristics or suit each other well.


----------



## Stokkard

All explanations are correct. I just want to add this:
"I spoke to a few people on the bus' means that you spoke to a small group of people. You could also say "I spoke to several people on the bus"
"I spoke to quite a few people on the bus" menas that you spoke to a large number of people.


----------



## duvija

I believe 'a few' is at least 3. I wouldn't use 'a few' if I'm talking about just 2 unrelated human beings.


----------



## blasita

duvija said:


> I believe 'a few' is at least 3. I wouldn't use 'a few' if I'm talking about just 2 unrelated human beings.



I understand it's just an exercise ("choose the right answer"). Yes, it's not synonymous with 'two/a pair'; _a few_ (a small number of something, some)=_unos pocos._


----------



## Jim2996

"Pair" means that they somehow go or belong together. If _two_ is all that is meant, use "two."

I have a pair of bookends.
I have a pair of lovebirds.
They make a fine pair.

I tried to speak to a pair of lovers at the bus stop, but they had no interest in me.

"Couple is ambiguous, maybe they belong together, maybe not. It can be used to mean "pair" or just "two."


----------



## duvija

And _"I talked to a couple o'people"_ doesn't have to be just two, right?


----------



## k-in-sc

"A couple of people" means approximately two. Give or take a couple


----------



## duvija

k-in-sc said:


> "A couple of people" means approximately two. Give or take a couple



Igual que 'un par' en español.


----------



## blasita

k-in-sc said:


> "A couple of people" means approximately two. Give or take a couple



That's interesting. I thought that_ *a couple of* girls,_ etc. could also mean exactly_ *two* girls, _etc.  But yes, at the same time, it can mean 'an indefinite small number'. Am I right?


----------



## Chispa123

Generally a couple is just that - two.  However when a person is talking, perhaps of a indeterminate survey, without wanting to be pinned down to number, he might say, "I talked to a couple people."  Usually this is a very small sample of people.


----------



## blasita

Yes, Chispa, that's what I thought. Thanks.


----------



## inib

judith bt said:


> can you say "a pair of people"?


I can't actually think of a situation in which "a pair of people" could be used. I like Jim's explanation that _a pair_ suggests two similar things/parts that go or belong together. Jim's and chicoguapo's examples demonstrate this. Talking about people (but not using the word "people"), I would only add "a pair of twins".

And now "couple". I agree that it generally means two (different/separate) entities, that the word is sometimes used to vaguely express a small number (like "un par de" or even "cuatro" in Spanish"), but then we have the contradiction that "a couple" can collectively mean two individuals who *are *sentimentally involved with each other*...*_a married couple _etc.
So, in this case, I think I could say "That pair of lovers at the bus stop make a lovely couple" and I would explain it this way: those two (belonging-together) individuals form a lovely unit.
Confusing, isn't it?


----------



## duvija

inib said:


> add "a pair of twins".
> 
> *Isn't this redundant?
> *
> And now "couple". I agree that it generally means two (different/separate) entities, that the word is sometimes used to vaguely express a small number (like "un par de" or even "cuatro" in Spanish"), but then we have the contradiction that "a couple" can collectively mean two individuals who *are *sentimentally involved with each other*...*_a married couple _etc.
> So, in this case, I think I could say "That pair of lovers at the bus stop make a lovely couple" and I would explain it this way: those two(belonging-together) individuals form a lovely unit.
> 
> *So you always use the verb in the plural? (I mean, can you ever decide that, if 'a pair' is a unit, could you use 'makes'? - No, you can't; I'm (almost) sure)
> I think I'm totally confused...
> 
> *Confusing, isn't it?


----------



## k-in-sc

No, "a pair (or set) of twins" isn't redundant, it's just emphasizing their twin-ness. They are also separate people, obviously.
You can use a singular verb only when the people are acting as a unit ("the couple wants/want to get married as soon as possible"). But even so, a plural verb still almost always sounds better. In the case of "they make a lovely couple," they are coming together to form a unit, not acting as a unit.


----------



## duvija

k-in-sc said:


> No, "a pair (or set) of twins" isn't redundant, it's just emphasizing their twin-ness. They are also separate people, obviously.
> You can use a singular verb only when the people are acting as a unit ("the couple wants/want to get married as soon as possible"). But even so, a plural verb still almost always sounds better. In the case of "they make a lovely couple," they are coming together to form a unit, not acting as a unit.



Uh, I think I get it now. Thanks!


----------



## blasita

inib said:


> I can't actually think of a situation in which "a pair of people" could be used.



I actually said that "a pair of people" was "correct" itself, but I think it's quite redundant and not used in everyday language, isn't it? However, there are some cases, as K said, where 'a pair of' is used (e.g. _a pair of twins_), and others where it is not.  I think that it can be fine in definitions (e.g. "brace is _a pair of people_, animals or objects": MacMillan Dictionary) and others. Not so used in general.

May I ask the foreros something, please? I think the translation may be part of the reason for confusion. If you had to use 'a pair/a couple' to say 'una pareja de amigos', you would not use _a pair of friends _(but at the same time you do say e.g._ a pair of lovers_)_. _Right?


----------



## sound shift

blasita said:


> May I ask the foreros something, please? I think the translation may be part of the reason for confusion. If you had to use 'a pair/a couple' to say 'una pareja de amigos', you would not use _a pair of friends _(but at the same time you do say e.g._ a pair of lovers_)_. _Right?


 Así lo veo yo. No diría "a pair of friends". Sí podría decir "a pair of lovers".


----------



## blasita

Muchas gracias por tu ayuda, Sound. Un saludo.


----------



## duvija

And I assume you still say 'a pair of conjoined twins' (or fraternal twins, but if they are stuck together, there is no need to say ' conjoined fraternal')


----------



## k-in-sc

No, just "conjoined twins," which obviously can only be identical.


----------



## duvija

k-in-sc said:


> No, just "conjoined twins," which obviously can only be identical.



But they are treated using the plural, aren't they? (I mean, the 'couple' doesn't need to be two independent people/persons). I justa want to confirm that there is no real rule covering all the cases.


----------



## inib

blasita said:


> I actually said that "a pair of people" was "correct" itself, but I think it's quite redundant and not used in everyday language, isn't it? However, there are some cases, as K said, where 'a pair of' is used (e.g. _a pair of twins_), and others where it is not. I think that it can be fine in definitions (e.g. "brace is _a pair of people_, animals or objects": MacMillan Dictionary) and others. Not so used in general.
> 
> May I ask the foreros something, please? I think the translation may be part of the reason for confusion. If you had to use 'a pair/a couple' to say 'una pareja de amigos', you would not use _a pair of friends _(but at the same time you do say e.g._ a pair of lovers_)_. _Right?


Thanks for the references, Blasita. Thank goodness I didn't state my opinion any more strongly!
Now it's my turn to ask a question (about the Spanish). When you say "una pareja de amigos", what exactly is your intention? I would imagine that you mean 2 friends who are connected in some way or doing something together, but it wouldn't necessarily imply a sentimental relationship, right? It's not the same as "un par de amigos", is it?


----------



## inib

duvija said:


> But they are treated using the plural, aren't they? (I mean, the 'couple' doesn't need to be two independent people/persons). I justa want to confirm that there is no real rule covering all the cases.


Of course. Even if their bodies are joined at some point, I don't think anybody would consider them one single person/identity. (Sorry if I'm missing your point, I'm a bit puzzled by the question ).


----------



## inib

Hi again, Duvija.
Personally, like K, I don't find a "pair of twins" redundant.
Supposing that Peter and Paul are twins, and so are Sue and Mary and they are all in my class, I would not be surprised by either of the following dialogues:
Duvija: How many twins are there in your class?
Inib: Four

Duvija: How many pairs of twins are there in your class?
Inib: Two

But it seems that you are not the only one to see this redundancy:http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=1983263


----------



## blasita

inib said:


> Now it's my turn to ask a question (about the Spanish). When you say "una pareja de amigos", what exactly is your intention? I would imagine that you mean 2 friends who are connected in some way or doing something together, but it wouldn't necessarily imply a sentimental relationship, right? It's not the same as "un par de amigos", is it?



Con permiso, va en español. Básicamente estoy de acuerdo contigo, Inib. 'Una pareja' (referido a personas) se usa especialmente cuando hay una relación sentimental entre ellos, pero esto no es siempre así y 'una pareja de amigos' (par de personas de la misma clase: los dos son amigos) no tiene que implicar que tienen una relación sentimental. 'Un par de amigos' puede significar 'dos amigos', pero también se usa para expresar un número más indefinido -siempre pequeño; parecido a 'a couple of' (como ya se ha dicho antes). Creo que si queremos decir exactamente dos, usaríamos más frecuentemente eso: 'dos' o 'two'.


----------



## duvija

inib said:


> Hi again, Duvija.
> Personally, like K, I don't find a "pair of twins" redundant.
> Supposing that Peter and Paul are twins, and so are Sue and Mary and they are all in my class, I would not be surprised by either of the following dialogues:
> Duvija: How many twins are there in your class?
> Inib: Four
> 
> Duvija: How many pairs of twins are there in your class?
> Inib: Two
> 
> But it seems that you are not the only one to see this redundancy:http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=1983263



Yeepee! I'm not the only stubborn idiot!!!!!


----------



## k-in-sc

I would have to disagree that "pair of twins" is more common. I think you hear "set of twins" much more often.


----------



## inib

Sorry if I sound like a dog with a bone, but why is "a pair of twins" any more redundant than "a pair of shoes"? They are both "manufactured" in two's, we generally expect them to go together, but they can exist independently.

(I've no objection, of course, to "a *set* of twins", but that's not what's puzzling me).


----------



## k-in-sc

Cosas de Duvija


----------



## inib

k-in-sc said:


> Cosas de Duvija


Yeah, but I do love the "spice" Duvija adds to these forums. (I suppose this will soon be considered "off-topic" so may it stand only as long as it should).


----------



## duvija

Well, the part that made me scratch my head was the business of 'independent' for 'a pair'. Considering 'a pair of pants, a pair of glasses, etc.', leave the "independence" alone! It's irrelevant


----------



## k-in-sc

Those are different


----------

