Conference thebay::joyoflex

Let me get this straight: you go to the dictionary, look up a word and 
disagree with its definition.  So you look to common useage, and you 
find that they are using it in the dictionary sense, so you disagree 
with that too.  So you write a long note to explain that you don't agree 
with the way the rest of the world uses the word, and ask us if you're 
wrong.  Is that a fair summary?

No, you're not wrong.  As far as I can gather, you're using the word 
correctly in those cases you use it, and you refrain from using it other 
times.  That's not wrong; it's freedom of choice.  You're only wrong if 
you tell *me* I can't use the word unless I use it your way.  My 
dictionary shows multiple definitions of multiple.

					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .1:
    
    No, the dictionary definition of "more than one" does _not_ agree with
    common usage.  Nobody calls a two-car accident a multiple-car accident.
    
    I think the problem here is using a bad dictionary.  Webster's contains
    other meanings, including "many".
    
    
    				-- edp

>	    Nobody calls a two-car accident a multiple-car accident.

Speak for yourself, Jocko.  If grouping accidents under the headings 
"single car" and "multiple car," I'd put two-car accidents under the 
latter.  Wouldn't you?
					>>>==>PStJTT

    Speaking only for myself, and not for the dictionary or the public, I
    tend to find "multiple" ambiguous in most of the examples in .0, and I
    try to avoid it except in cases such as that cited in .3, where the
    only point is to distinguish "one" from "more than one", or in
    arithmetic, when one quantity can be a multiple of another.
    
    --bonnie 

    there seems to be a multiplicity of opinions on the use of the word
    "MULTIPLE".
    
    I think we need to get to the square root of this problem.
    
    

    Re .3:
    
    Being forced to make a choice is not the same as a natural use of the
    words.  If I found an orange objects among objects to be sorted into a
    bin for red objects or one for blue, I would put it in the red bin, but
    that does not mean orange is red.  How many people, picking any words
    they want, would call a two-car accident a multiple-car accident?
                                           
                                                                     
    				-- edp 

    I can understand some of the confusion over this issue, but I
    question whether a somewhat improper usage of the word actually
    causes the statement to be misinterpreted.
    
    I'll grant that it is often used as an adjective to modify an
    implied subject or even an incorrect subject.  An ice-cream stand
    usually give their customers a "multiple choice of flavors".  As used
    here, _multiple_ is really not necessary, but it tries to give the
    idea, "Hey!  Look how _many_ flavors we have!"
    
    A "multiple car accident" creates an image that there were more
    than _two_ vehicles involved.  A "two-car accident" or a "three-car
    accident" simply gives a more specific report.

    I work on a "multiple terminal" computer system.  I take this to
    mean that it can have _more than one_ terminal in operation at the
    same time; and that would certainly include two or more.

    I just don't think it's any great problem.

    If someone came into my office armed with clipboard and survey forms
    and asked me, "what you call an accident involving two cars?" I
    would probably stare with a puzzled look, blink several times, and
    reply, "I beg your pardon?"
    
    Assuming that the questioner didn't mark me in the "none of the above"
    category and march off, but instead repeated the question, my reply
    would probably be, "a two car accident?" Questions involving accidents
    involving three, four, five, etc. cars would get more strange looks and
    answers of "a three-car accident?" and so on. 
    
    If the questioner asked, "Is a two-car accident a multiple-car
    accident?" I would reply, "Yeah. It's not a single-car accident, is
    it?" After the questioner left, I would march off to the unabridged
    dictionary outside my secretary's office and look up "multiple." Most
    likely, it would tell me it its first definition, "consisting of,
    including, or involving more than one <~ birth>, <~ burial of plague
    victims>, <~ cable>, <~ corolla>, <~ drill>, <~ rate>, <~ skin
    eruption>" and I would smugly conclude that I was right. (At least I
    hope it would say that -- it did just a moment ago, and a protean
    dictionary would be disconcerting.) 
    
    If the questioner asked, "What would you call an accident involving
    more than one car?" I would reply, "A multiple-car accident?" and make
    the same pilgrammage to the dictionary. I'd probably make the same smug
    conclusion.
    
    Am I missing something? Is "multiple" supposed to mean "more than two"? 
    
    	Jon

I'm about to deliver another one of my "shades of meaning" lectures again:

The word "multiple" connotes difference as well as number.  Five things
that are all the same are not generally referred to as multiple.  A hydra, for
instance, has *many* heads, but not *multiple* heads.  A multiple head
screwdriver, however, is understood to have several heads of many different
sizes.  A multiple choice question has many *different* choices for answers.
Think about it.

John M.

    Precisely my point; I'm a poet, I see no problem. Glad we agree.
    
    I suppose we can then conclude that if more than one *different* cars
    run into each other, then it's a multiple-car accident, whereas if the
    same car runs into itself several times, or several copies of the same
    car are in an accident, it is not. 
    
    	Jon

    re .10:
    
    >          . . .                        or several copies of the same
    >car are in an accident, it is not.
    
    I would think several copies of the same car would collectively
    qualify as a multiple car.                    
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    This brings up an interesting point:  
    
    If there was in fact only one car, but the driver was in such bad
    shape that he was seeing several copies of the car, would that be
    considered a multiple car?
    
    --bonnie

    Re: -.1
    
    <If there was in fact only one car, but the driver was in such bad
    <shape that he was seeing several copies of the car, would that be
    <considered a multiple car?
    
    No. But it might be considered drunk driving!
    
    -bs
    
    

    	In arithmetic, if one was asked to find the Lowest Common Multiple
    (LCM) of 2 and 6, one might answer "6", which might mean that sometimes
    "multiple" is only one. I have even seen it claimed that 0 and -6
    were multiples of 6. You do not need to be drunk to see a multiple
    car if the multiplier is 0 or 1.