Okay I told you don't make me come over there and separate you two! ;-) This actually touches on the arbitrary nature of language. A word only means something because all the parties who want to use that word, agree (whether or not they think they do) that this word will mean this thing. If over time, a culture begins to use the word in a different way or differently in other contexts, it's not because of anything intrinsic to the word, but simply because the parties or societies decided (whether or not they think they have) to "renegotiate".
Therefore your argument (Jacque) has no meaning. Sorry to disappoint you. Bob S > On Sep 8, 2021, at 14:43 , Mark Waddingham via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > Heh - I think you are both right in different contexts... > > For sure, when used as a noun in isolation (a couple) it refers to two - > specifically either a pair of parallel but opposing forces (physics) or a > pair of (usually romantically) involved individuals (some might wryly suggest > that these two things are much the same ;) ). > > I’d say though that when applied to another noun, it generally implies ‘some’ > - not two specifically, or even three - but a definitely small number. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
