Language desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 22

Semantics ... Triplets vs. Twins

Say that a pregnant woman has twins (Ann and Bob). It is appropriate to say "Ann is Bob's twin" (or vice versa). It is also appropriate to say "Ann and Bob are twins". OK. Now say that a pregnant woman has triplets (Ann, Bob, and Carl). When you are referring to all three, it is appropriate to say "Ann and Bob and Carl are triplets". But what are the correct semantics when you just want to refer to two of them? Basically, what is the best way to complete this sentence: "Ann is Bob's _______" ... or this sentence: "Ann and Bob are _____". Could you say: "Ann is Bob's triplet"? Is that appropriate wording? Could you say: "Ann is Bob's twin"? Is that appropriate wording? And, semantically, are any two of those three triplets considered "twins" of each other or no? That is, are Ann and Bob considered to be twins of each other ... even though they are from a set of triplets? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 08:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

When you say "Ann is Bob's twin" (in the case of two kids), you're actually saying "Ann is Bob's twin sister", so it's ok to say "Ann is Bob's triplet [sister]". When you say "Ann and Bob are twins" (two kids again), you're actually saying "Anna and Bob are members of a set of two", so it's ok to say "Ann and Bob are triplets" (i.e. members of a set of three). What's not ok is to say "Ann and Bob are twins" when they are actually members of a set of three, not those of a set of two. Hope it makes sense. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 09:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my ears, "Ann is Bob's triplet" does not sound right. "Ann is Bob's twin" is a commonly used expression and widely understood. "Ann is Bob's triplet" to me suggests that Ann is Bob's child. To avoid misunderstanding, I think that you have to say "Ann and Bob are triplets." Marco polo 13:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even that sounds infelicitous. I'd say "Ann and Bob are two of three triplets". —Angr 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably turn it around, as Angr suggests, but I think the main reason why "Ann is Bob's triplet" doesn't 'sound right' is simply that triplets of whom all three survive are amazingly rare. Most of us have known people who were twins, how many of us have ever had to discuss triplets? Xn4 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have to discuss them occasionally in my family: my sister's husband's sister had triplets, all of whom survived. As fertility treatment becomes more common, so do multiple births. —Angr 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused. When you have multiple births (say, 5 children) ... are any 2 of those 5 considered "twins" of each other? Or no? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No. --Lambiam 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that depend though? I think it is possible for a set of identical twins within a set of triplets or greater. Eran of Arcadia 13:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. When a pair of identical twins falls within a larger number of children all born together, such as triplets, no doubt we call them twins and each is the other's twin. I don't know how rare it is, but it does happen. This article, Identical twins make the grade at Sunderland, is about just such a case. Xn4 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the last two posters (Eran of Arcadia and Xn4): That is exactly why I am confused. Let's say we have 5 children born simultaneously (quintuplets). They are named A, B, C, D, E. Let's just say that A and B are identical to each other (and no one else). Let's also say that the others (C, D, and E) are not identical to anyone at all, but rather are fraternal. Are you saying that A and B can be called "twins" because they are identical twins (even though they come from a set of quintuplets)? But, say, A and D cannot be called "twins" because they are fraternal twins rather than identical twins (even though they come from a set of quintuplets)? A twin is a twin is a twin, regardless if identical or fraternal, no? (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As already noted above, the occasions for such distinctions arise so seldom for any one of us, Angr's family notwithstanding, that we are likely to develop a verbal "work around" specific to the circumstances of the moment. A medical doctor or psychiatrist might need to know that Ann and Bob are identical twins, and also two of quintuplets, as might their school, for example, but, except to make them notable within a private converstaion or even a work group or social group, defining the whole of their relationships is surely just too much information. In short, I don't think there is an absolutely correct, and economical, form, equivalent to "Ann and Bob are twins." Whatever you say is bound to need some further explanation.Bielle 17:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentences "Anne is Bob's triplet sister" and "Carol and Duane are quintuplet siblings" both work fine. They sound a little odd, but so do all the alternatives. For added chuckles, here's a riddle: Alice and Bob are identical twins, but they have separate mothers. How is this possible? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell -- is this the correct answer? Alice is an identical twin to some other person (say, Ann). Bob is an identical twin to some other person (say, Bill). Alice and Ann are siblings, of the same Mom (Mom #1). Bob and Bill are siblings, of the same Mom (Mom #2). Thus, Alice and Bob are indeed identical twins, just not of each other. Correct? (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yup. You win! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would add to the challenge to use same-gender names, e.g. Alice and Betty, or Andy and Bob. Tesseran 08:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I was wondering about that. A male and a female (brother / sister) can never, by definition, be identical twins to each other ... is that correct? If we have twins of the opposite sex, they must be fraternal ... am I right about that? (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Name @ please

Could someone tell me the name of the symbol @ used in email address? I know it is called 'At', but I am wondering if it has a more definite name, like the symbol & being called ampersand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.142.23 (talk)

Our article @ should answer your question, in short, in English it is simply called at or the at symbol, but in some other languages it has a specific name. DuncanHill 12:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~In British English it's formal name is Asperand -not to be confused with Ampersand (&) - although it is widely known as at~~ Or perhaps not. See the discussion page for the @ article.. - X201 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Chinese couple just named their baby "@". Corvus cornix 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue Twisters

I am neither a linguist nor a psychiatrist ... so please phrase your answers accordingly. Thanks. Why exactly is it so difficult for humans to say things like "She sells sea shells by the sea shore" ...? What exactly, biologically or psychologically, is happening to the person attempting to say the tongue twister? That is, what is going on with your physical body ... or your mind ... that makes the statement so difficult / impossible (?) to say? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am unable to answer your question, but can't resist pointing you in the direction of she who sold sea-shells by the sea-shore. DuncanHill 20:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that it is because of similarity of sounds in tongue twister - you have to quickly repeat words where only few sounds are diferent, so you say (Sh)e (s)ells (s)ea (sh)ells therefore your brains expect that you will say the same word again. Article Tongue twister states that "Tongue-twisters may rely on similar but distinct phonemes (e.g., s [s] and sh [ʃ]), unfamiliar constructs in loanwords, or other features of a language."---- Xil/talk 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be that the speaker is anticipating the sounds which follow the sound presently being uttered, as in the case of 'pheasant plucker', in which the actual sounds which are often mistaken (i.e. 'ph' (= f) and 'pl') are not actually similar. This is even an actual process of language change (at least in borrowing), but I can't think of any examples off-hand. --Manga 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting question. I believe there are various reasons depending on the type of tongue twister. To overly simplify it has to do with confusing your tongue/mouth, your brain, or both. Some rely on words that make the tongue/mouth do gymnastic feats, using combinations of words that require extra effort from the nerves and muscles that tell your tongue what to do; for example each word requiring very different contortions of the mouth/tongue. In linguists' terms the twister presents difficulties in "motor planning" for the tongue and finding the right "articulatory position." See Apraxia(of speech) for an example of something that causes even "normal" speech to become as difficult as tongue twisters for people. So, it has to do with the relative ease or difficulty of articulation. See Dissimilation, Epenthesis (consonant clusters can be difficult to say), and Reduplication all of which have elements relating to ease of articulation that can be used to construct tongue twisters. The other element is confusing your brain. See this fairly interesting article for some insight on how that might work [1]. Author seems to be suggesting that it is purely a "brain" phenomenon, which in a way is obvious because your brain controls your tongue, but I don't think that's the whole picture; I'm not an expert though and I'd love to hear a better explanation from someone who is, or claims to be. Azi Like a Fox 07:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A study, Does silent reading involve articulation? Evidence from tongue twisters (PMID 7180948) found that the additional time it takes to read a tongue twister out loud, compared to a control sentence, was recapitulated when read silently. In other words, verbal articulation is not the only mechanism through which our "tongues" get "tied", they also get tied in the brain. Another study used MRI to study the brain regions are activated during the silent reading of tongue twisters, compared with control sentences. These included the inferior frontal gyrus, anterior insular cortex and inferior parietal cortex. Other studies have found that the same effect is not an visual artifact (its seen in people reading from logographic writing systems (such as Chinese) as it is in English), and that congenitally deaf readers have the same problem with tongue twisters, so its not an artifact of auditory input either. There are basically two competing theories for why the brain stutters over tongue twisters. To quote Keller et al, in Brain imaging of tongue-twister sentence comprehension: Twisting the tongue and the brain (PMID 12590911):

“

One account, articulatory based, is that the tongue-twister effect results from a bottleneck in subvocal phonological/articulatory processing at a prelexical stage or in lexical access. Such an articulatory locus could produce a deficit in comprehension or memory maintenance by diverting cognitive resources from comprehension or maintenance processes to the processing of phonological/articulatory codes or to the repair of phonological errors. The second account, memory-based, is that the difficulty of tongue-twister sentences results because the phonological similarities interfere with the normal maintenance of the surface structure of the sentence within a verbal working memory system during syntactic and semantic comprehension. Such interference might require reprocessing of the words in order to obtain more complete information about the words or about their order in the sentence, adding to the processing time.

”

I'm a neuro-scientist by profession and still have a problem fully understanding the difference between these two theories, but my best interpretation is that:

The brain struggles to process and separate the similar sounds as they are sent to the mouth, thus requiring us to slow down to say it properly.
The similar sounds disrupt out ability to draw a memory of sentence structure, therefore we have to parse the sentence from scratch, thus requiring us to slow down to say it properly.

Note there is empirical evidence for both and they are not mutually exclusive. Hope that helps. Rockpocket 07:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm allowed to add my private theory: as the stream of phonemes of an intended utterance is transformed into a stream of articulatory directives, various articulatory aspects determining the sound of a phoneme or standard phoneme cluster (such as: fricative, alveolar, post-, unvoiced) appear as somewhat independent elements in the combined stream of directives, and the proper sequencing when realizing these directives may get mixed up if recombinations of these elements are "statistically" equally plausible. While this explanation does not identify a specific neural mechanism, it is consistent with the observation that other tasks depending on fast proper sequencing of motoric actions (e.g. playing the piano and other musical instruments) can give rise to similar phenomena. --Lambiam 08:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, Rockpocket, thanks. You should figure out a way to make your theory testable Lambiam, get yourself a sweet academic paper goin'. The tongue twister article could definitely benefit from a more scientific/linguistics perspective. Man! The Japanese and Polish tongue twisters in the article are tough. -- Azi Like a Fox 08:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A slight tangent, but I thought it might be of some relevance. I have a slight speech impediment, in which I have difficulty pronouncing the sound of the letter r, it often comes out more like a w. This happens more often if there are both r and w sounds in a sentence. When reading aloud, if I see a sentence coming up which mixes those sounds a lot, I will be affected badly, yet when speaking more spontaneously, I can produce similar sentences with no difficulty. DuncanHill 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]