We have basic words for the numbers zero to three, so why not use them to count?
- None (0)
- Single (1)
- pair (2)
- Multiple (3+ but we’ll use it as three)
So with those “digits” we can construct some numbers:
- Single
- pair
- Multiple
- Single nothing
- Single single
- Single pair
- Single multiple
- Pair of nothing
- Pair of singels
- Pair of pairs
And of course we can construct bigger numbers like:
42 = 4²×2+4¹×2+4⁰×2 = pair of pairs of pairs
128 = 4³×2 = pair of absolute complete nothinges
For this last one I just use some adjectives to repeat the “nothing” as it looks really weird with multiple nothing in a row.
The distance between Stockholm and Gothenburg is a single multiple of none multiple multiples
Could I have a single multiple of bananas please?
Why not use “triple” for three, which actually does mean three.
Because we also have words like quadruple, quintuple, etc which would break his theory. lol
How about treble?
If you ask someone for “multiple” of something their almost always going to give you three of that thing (or nothing). In that context multiple is just three and as @[email protected] pointed out, if I use triple I could as well keep going with higher numbers (quadrupole etc)
Huh? I’ve lived a long time and that’s not something that feels familiar to me. On the other hand I do have multiple dollars in my bank account and that equation checks out.
The victim was shot multiple times. I don’t see this as 3. I’d see this as 5 or 6 times
If someone asks me for “a few” I’ll give them three or four. If someone asks for “multiple” I’ll give them a handful and ask if that’s enough.
I don’t know where in the world this theory is coming from, but here, two would be “a couple” and three+ would be “a few.” Not that “a pair” (never just pair) and multiple aren’t used in other contexts, but you wouldn’t use pair and multiple in the same context. A pair is specific, multiple is an estimate.