From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:53:45 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov15.145943.5614@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:

>I have done some research on the U-word.  Herewith is the score.  
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Huh?

>If you don't believe me, I would urge you to look it up yourself.

>1.  On the matter of Roger L.'s expert envy:

Wrong glasses again?  I don't recall envying any experts.  However,
I have cited a few.  Are experts *necessarily* wrong?

>I made commentary on this several months ago in a light-hearted manner, and I
>believe he took it that way.  OK then, here's a rundown of the expert opinion.

>In favor of a modifiable uniqueness (this according to Roger): Evans, AHD 1.

AHD 1 lists the adverbs that can modify the word: almost, really, quite
(in the sense of "truly"), more nearly, most nearly.   Ones rejected by
the Usage Panel: rather, the most, more, somewhat, very.  The Usage
Note distinguishes one group from the other by the fact that the first
group does not imply degree in the sense that the second group does.

>Opposed to a modifiable uniqueness (according to my research): Fowler,
>Nicholson, Strunk & White, Phythian, Partridge, Oxford Guide to English Usage
>(and I would add Webster's 3rd and OED).  I may have missed some experts in
>this tally, but I wouldn't hesitate to guess that they're in this group.

I'll go and look at these, but note that S&W isn't a dictionary or a usage
guide -- it's a style book that often goes against usage and makes no
bones about it.  S&W do not claim to be usage experts, nor were they.

>Result: on the basis of the quantity and quality of expert opinion, round 1
>goes to the NOT group.  

Could you post a few of the *arguments* these guys give?  I've posted
the AHD and Evans arguments, which seem pretty good to me, taking into
account their differing purposes (and the inherent speciousness of the
Usage Panel method).

>The majority of experts agree that unique is not
>modifiable.  As the OED states, unique means "Single, sole, alone of its
>kind... (obs: rare)."

Non-sequitur.  That the OEd states that doesn't mean that the word is or
is not modifiable.  

>HOWEVER, Phythian makes an interesting note that something may be nearly or
>almost unique.

In short, modifiable.  So what's he doing in Column B?

>2.  Is "unique" unique?

>I reviewed the discussion of unique in Webster's English usage guide (1989, pp.
>927-929).  Very interesting.  Here's a summary of what they said.

>There are four distinct meanings of unique.  The first meaning -- incidently,
>the one Roger's expert (Evans) said may be modified -- is *only* or *sole*.

Read again what I posted.  An excerpt: 'Today "unique" may mean "in a class
by itself," but it more often means "unparalleled" or simply "remarkable."
"In all its current senses "unique" may be modified.'

>A second meaning is *having no like or equal*, that is, unparalleled; note that
>this could be bad (e.g., "Dracula's unique evil").  

Which, according to Evans, may be modified.

>A third meaning is
>*peculiar*, as in "unique to" (e.g., "The spotted owl is unique to old growth
>forest in the Pacific Northwest").  The final meaning is *unusual excellence*,
>as in "Williams' .406 batting average was an indicator of his unique batting
>capability."

Which, according to Evans, may be modified.

>Webster's had two suggestions for use of unique.  First, in its typical (though
>not unique) cynical style, it suggested that many have dearly held beliefs
>about unique but "Perhaps you might try being one who knows enough about its
>bad reputation to avoid it but who also knows enough about its actual history
>not to sneer at those who use it" (p. 929).  In this sense they endorse its
>modification.

>However, they went on to state that if one wishes to modify unique to make it
>mean unusual or distinctive, then one *should* replace unique with unusual or
>distinctive and not use unique.

>I would add that they are implicitly acknowledging the lack of symetry which I
>would write out as follows: something is rare because it is unique, but
>something may not be unique because it is rare.

Three comments:

1) Time for a reality check.  Are you *honestly* saying that any of the 
folks above disallow *all* modifiers for "unique"?  Including "really"
and "truly" and "more nearly" and "in some/every sense" and so on?
"Unique" can obviously be modified; the question is: how?

2) As I stated before, the problem is not only with "unique" and the 
word-fetish that surrounds it, but with "quite."  "Quite" is used to
mean "truly" or "indeed," i.e., to verify or intensify a word that 
follows it.  It has nothing to do with degree (though "not quite")
seems to.

3) regarding the "experts" -- I don't give a damn that they're experts.
I care mainly that they provide a survey of usage, and a discussion of
what words actually mean and how they are actually used.  When the alternative
is sneering and bald assertion and specious reasoning based on misinformation
about what this or that word means, I will indeed reach for the experts.
I will weigh their arguments and decide for myself -- but I see no reason
to deprive myself of their experience, or to discount them for reasons
of fashion.

Incidentally, the reason I cited AHD and Evans was that those are the two
books I have here at home.  Now, would you do us the favor of repeating
a few of the arguments the other sources you mention employ?  So far
you've given us one point from Phythian -- which contradicts what you 
say he says.  Simple yes and no tallies aren't of much interest to me;
it's the arguments and evidence behind them that make the difference.

>This posting doesn't solve this debate, but I would conclude that simply
>counting up experts doesn't win Roger's case.  On the other hand, those of
>Roger's ilk are partially correct to one degree, but not ... uniquely?

(You should see what the Usage Panel said about "partially."  8-)  )

I agree that tallying up experts doesn't mean anything.  Considering
their arguments does, however.

Roger