firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > On Monday, March 18, 2013 12:59:12 PM UTC, Frederick Williams wrote: > > email@example.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] I'm sure I'd have lots of questions and that would open up a great multilogue (meaning a dialogue but extended to more than two views) > > > > > > > > It pleases me to be able to report that the "di" bit of "dialogue" has > > > > nothing to do with two people. > > It pleases me greatly to be able to learn this. I've never heard the word "duologue" before. I'm surprised it's so rare because the concept of a conversation between two parties (and no more) is an extremely common one. Maybe people don't use the word "duologue" much because many are as shamefully ignorant as I am and assume that the definition of "dialogue" is the same as what I thought it was.
See the thread '"Dia-" in "dialogue"' started by me on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:08:55 +0000 in alt.usage.english. There are already three accounts of its meaning: one wrong, two plausible but different! My guess at "made of" was wrong.
Google has 184,000,000 pages for dialogue, and a mere 367,000 for duologue. Dialog finds 170,000,000.
I've just learned that the spell checker that reads this doesn't know "duologue". Nor does it know "dialog", but then it is a UK English thing.
-- When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting