Talk:twin-

RFD discussion: April–August 2017
Not IMO a prefix. Feels more like an adjective. There's virtually always a hyphen when it's used in longer words, and it doesn't have any particular special meaning beyond the usual noun. Equinox ◑ 19:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, delete. I could only find one hyphenated entry anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's never used as an adjective though. Nothing is very twin, or so twin, or more twin/twinner.... keep Leasnam (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can, it's just rarer now. Eg in Twelfth Night, "An apple cleft in two is not more twin…". Ƿidsiþ 08:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a surprise for you, Oxford, Cambridge and Collins all regard twin as an adjective, e.g. twin sister, twin town etc. DonnanZ (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * attributive. that would be like saying sister in is an adjective. it's not imo. there is also, ,  Leasnam (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't say, my sister is twin (adj). Leasnam (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with those dictionaries. The concept that adjectives must be comparable is rather bizarre. Anyway twin as an adjective can be discussed in the Tea Room if you want to do that. DonnanZ (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comparablity and gradability are two sufficient conditions in out decision making about whether a candidate term to be considered an adjective. The only necessary condition is that it modify a noun, without which condition the adjective PoS would probably be speedily deleted. We follow the  for PoS tests where possible. DCDuring (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would call it a modifier. But it's all good. It's being used as a prefix even if we don't call it one; I'm satisfied with that. The concept that a prefix cannot be a standalone word is bizarre to me. But it's the consensus here, and I respect that. delete :) Leasnam (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not attributive, it's an adjective. It just feels attributive now because the noun is so much more common. Ƿidsiþ 08:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right--it was an adjective in Old English (alongside ġetwinn which was the noun). It must have survived unrecorded in ME to this day. I'll update the entry Leasnam (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The "very", "so", etc. tests are useful evidence for an adjective but not necessarily required. Equinox ◑ 23:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Same story as (to be archived at Talk:two-). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Examples are easily paraphrased to use twin as a separate word: the plane has twin engines-->it's a twin-engine plane. The fact that it's attached to the following word is merely an artifact of how phrases are treated when used as modifiers.
 * The matter of whether twin as a modifier is an adjective is a bit murkier. It obviously started out as attributive use of the noun, but it's hard to be sure that it hasn't changed into something else, whether an adjective or a determiner, I'm not sure. There's also the matter of having two as opposed to being one of two: twin engines may be twins to each other, but they aren't twins to the plane, and someone with sisters who are twins to each other but not to them could say "I have twin sisters", but not "I have a twin sister". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete; the word can also be used without the hyphen, as in Chuck's example of "twin engines", which strongly suggests that hyphenated use does not represent a prefix; compare "ownership-based society" in which "ownership" is neither a prefix nor an adjective. This is independent of the question of what part of speech "twin" is in "twin engines". That it was an adjective in Old English, and that a few examples like "more twin than" can still be found, suggest it may be an adjective (compare Talk:aliquot). - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * RFD deleted per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)