All songs should be taken literally, which is why I eat love and prayers, and have a restraining order against me for trying to drag Hozier into a church at knifepoint.

Either interpretation is valid, though. Either one is an absurd amount of gifts, I would not put it past the gifter to have made an extravagant display of re-giving the stuff from days before each day.

I’d be interested if this sort of exaggeration humor was common in Victorian England. Giving them all those things each day has a very “Lucy and Ethel at the chocolate factory” vibe that would be very amusing after a wassail or two.

“on the second day of Christmas my true love gave to me, two turtle doves and a partridge in a pear tree.”

It takes a bit of mental gymnastics to assert that on the second day of Christmas he did not send two turtle doves and a partridge in a pear tree.

If I said yesterday I gave my friend a pork pie and today I gave my friend some spaghetti and a pork pie, you would not come to the conclusion that my friend did not receive a second pork pie.

It’s literally what the song says. On the first day, I got a partridge in a pear tree. On the second day, I got 2 turtle doves and a partridge in a pair tree.

If you think the gifts weren’t given recursively it’s because you believe it should be that way, not because you’re paying any attention to the lyrics as they’re written.

The song explicitly says they are given recursively

Good bot

I think it’s Ass.

The emoji was standing in for the “A” for “ackshully”