DogMuffins

Good lord. I made a mistake. Fuck me.

Biannual does indeed have potentially different meanings to biennial. In that you are correct.

However, my point as I'm sure you are aware, is that the existence of the word "biennial" does not imply that "biannual" can not mean 2 years.

Because biennial is a word that exists, that doesn't mean biannual does not have the same meaning.

I'm a tax consultant. I look at what companies pay people all day every day. I've never seen a company pay twice monthly. Always fortnightly. This might vary by region but unheard of here.

Think of biweekly and biweekly as homonyms, they can mean either and you figure out the meaning through context.

Very few things happen twice a week, biweekly usually means every second week, but it's never used because fortnightly is preferred.

Others here are saying bimonthly means twice a month but I've never heard it used that way. Again, very few things happen twice a month, it's always fortnightly which is not the same. Lots of things happen every second month, "the board meets bimonthly", that means 6 times a year.

Biannual always means twice a year because what things do you do every second year?

In all cases you can use the alternative meaning like "I visit my cousin biannually" and it's not incorrect but of course "I visit my cousin every second year" avoids confusion.

Very commonly used in Australia.

Wars are won with logistics. What resupply infrastructure do these guys have in place?

Do the states have aircraft carriers?

Wait, you mean when we genocide people they become radicalised and support whatever organisation with defend them? I'm shocked.

I don't know much about such things but I wonder whether it's possible in any meaningful way.

If there's a split they don't just divvy up the toys and have at it.

One side might have a few things on wheels and tracks, but can they call in an air strike? Will they even have GPS?

The phrase "baseless assumptions" does not mean that no base was provided. It means that the purported base is inadequate to support a causal likelihood that the assumptions are true.

Besides which, your argument is one of semantics, which you're welcome to.

"This person can't have been abused because they signed a contract"