From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:51:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.034224.17561@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.164506.24509@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>True, and most careful writers of today would not use "most unique," and
>>>as such it gains in value.

>>Absolutely.  I'd probably correct it myself if I encountered it in a 
>>piece of formal writing.  

>I'm so glad.  There's still hope for you.

You were making a point about rudeness earlier.  Could you explain it 
again?

(For the record, I have enunciated this position about the use of "most
unique" and the like at least five times during this discussion.)

>>>>Be more precise about what's judgment and what's opinion, and this 
>>>>won't happen ever again, I promise.

>>>Wow!  Can I have that in writing?

>>You just did.

>Legally speaking, email doesn't count as "in writing."  Fax me.

That's easier with a number.

>>>Dictionaries don't
>>>tell the whole story (as some of your messages implied), neither does
>>>Evans & Evans, Strunk & White, or Fowler.

>>Also true.  Doe this mean we should not make our judgments based on
>>as many of the bits of info we can put together, or that we should
>>not let our reading of those various bits be guided by some general
>>principles of language?

>But each person will interpret that reading and those bits of info
>quite differently....thus we have your defending "most unique" and my
>rebuking it.

So, if there is a possibility of differing interpretations of evidence,
the proper response is to throw up one's hands and call *all* interpretations
equal?  To include those that are clearly in the teeth of the evidence
"because all opinions are eqully valid"?  

No.

>>>We're in a *usage* newsgroup.  Everything is opinion.  Usage is all
>>>opinion, be it yours, mine, or anyone else's.  

>>Bosh.  Usage is what people say. 

>Indeed.  And most careful writers and speakers would not, I think you
>would agree, use "irregardless" or "most unique."

So?  What has that to do with my point?  Many people, including careful
writers and speakers, will use all kinds of things in informal and
colloquial speech that they will not use in more formal situations.
But those informal situations are language situations, too -- the net
is one, imho -- and when we speak of language and usage, it seems odd
that we would exclude the bulk of acutal practice and focus on just
a few, relatively artificial situations.

>>You weren't writing mere opinions.  You were attaching value judgments
>>("wrong," "misuse," "sloppy", "careful") to observations.  You were making
>>judgments, not only about this or that word, but about how people speak 
>>and write.             

>Damn right I was making judgments, but those judgments are my
>opinions.  I've never known someone to have an opinion without a
>judgment attached to it.  I still am making judgments and casting
>opinions, and have no regrets about doing it.  Someone can say "me and
>my friends..." or "irregardless" or "most unique" and they can be
>perfectly comfortable doing it.  That doesn't mean that I'm not going
>to make a judgment about such a usage or have an opinion on it.

Yet you did not cast your opinions/judgments in personal language.
You did not say, or give any clues toward, their personal nature.  
When someone says "X is wrong" they are generally speaking of
something that is at the very least considered wrong by a consensus
or by a specific group of people.  If you are speaking for yourself
only, "X is wrong" is a misleading usage.  It is imprecise.  

>>>>Or giving some of the sources of your opinions? I
>>>>bet they'd be genuinely fascinating.

>>>One of these days...perhaps when you stop threatening me with
>>>two-by-fours, and after I finish mopping up all that prejudice that
>>>you claim I've spattered everywhere.

>>{insert missing reply here]

>Forgot to reply to that one, eh?  I guess you're mopping up any 
>prejudice that I inadvertently spattered on your terminal.

I didn't delete it, the way some people might have...you really
want that fax?   

Roger