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: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:45:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.042016.15898@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.175556.12116@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>To be honest, I couldn't care less if you trust or respect me, Roger, because
>>>you have not proven _yourself_ to be respectable.  As for your analogy, it
>>>flounders because the English language is not your piece of work.  It is

>>But my uses of it are.  And it is this or that use that you are criticizing.

>What is this, class-action linguistics?  Roger comes to the defense of
>all those who want to use "most unique" and "irregardless" and the
>like?  Somehow I doubt those things are full-blown characteristics of
>your speech or writing.

So?  There are many things I don't do, such as bungee jumping, eating
peanut butter, playing the viola, etc. that I would nonetheless defend
the rights of others to do -- and the propriety of their doing so.

>>Sorry, Gabe, but that's just not so.  All opinions are equally valid -- 
>>if you assign them the default value of zero.  Opinions gain in value 
>>through their support.  Through argument and evidence.  

>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.  

But most language is not formal writing, nor should the standards of 
formal writing be applied indiscriminately to other situations.

>>>And yes, you get a little more than "testy."  You become insolent and
>>>contemptuously rude.

>>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.

>For goodness sake, we're dealing with a field in which there is so much
>data and so many variants that there *are* no facts.  

That's an odd view of "fact."  Seems to me there are *tons* of facts.

>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?

>>Well, I must say it finally worked.  You've admitted that the things
>>you wrote in the style of judgments were only meant to be opinions,
>>and that's a big step.  Now how about reworking your style to make 
>>this clearer?  

>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.  That's not opinion.  It can be
observed and measured.  The results of such measurements are 
dictionaries (e.g., DARE.)

>I've just been sitting
>here for months writing them, watching you jump up and down and bang
>on the table, asking everyone to justify everything they write with
>library citations...something I have no intention of doing in the near
>future.  

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.             

And some of your judgments were made in the teeth ofthe evidence.  Now 
you are trying to deny that there is evidence, or (directly above)
telling us you have no interest in gathering evidence.  Pardon me if
I find your mode of operation less than impressive!

>>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.

>>>>>There are many others...Fowler, S&W, etc. who disagree, and
>>>>Actually,  it's hard to tell.
>>>Not really.  You only have to read them.
>>I did.  So did others, one of whom has pointed out that Ted's count
>>is highly questionable.

>Perhaps, but it does show that there are other points of view equally
>valid to that shared by you and Evans&Evans. 

Surely you mean "equally valid *as* that..."  8-)

But, no, it doesn't show that at all.  For one thing, Ted included
items on his list that didn't really express another POV.  For another,
you're still arguing that all opinions are equally valid, no matter what
the arguments behind them.  That's still nonsense.

Next, note that "you and E&E" is actually me and E&E and AHD and Claiborne
and (to some extent) Fowler, Phythian, Jespersen, etc.  I have yet to see
a pure statement of the viewpoint that Ted claimed was prevalent.  I have
yet to see (and I've looked -- no fear of libraries here) an outright
rejection of "quite unique" or a historically informed rejection of
the modifications of degree for "U."

>>>>But that it's in the dictionary means that people *do* use it

>>>So?  People use "axe" and "irregardless" too and can be understood, and I'm
>>>sure they appear in some dictionary somewhere.  That doesn't mean anything.

>>Well, then, if it doesn't mean anything, why are there dictionaries? 

>Generally speaking, to provide an account of what is going on in the
>language at the time of their compilation, not to indicate what the
>best speakers and writers do.  

No, sorry.  I know of *no* standard dictionary that does that.  Certainly
not the OED; almost all of its cites *are* from good writers, and their
standard was quite simply the one you deny.

Other than DARE, for instance, what dictionary does what you say?  Almost
all will comment on the level or dialect a usage is found in.

>Every word in the dictionary is not to be embraced.

Indeed -- and the dictionary will tell you how and when people *do*
hug this or that word.

>>>Perhaps, but I suspect that most good and careful writers would still use
>>>infer to indicate what the person receiving is doing, and imply to indicate
>>>what the person sending is doing.

>>Well, now, that's a bit more moderate, and easier to agree with.  We're 
>>down to suspicions about most careful writers, as opposed to assertions 
>>about all careful writers.
>
>And to that end, to *not* use them in that form is to lose a shade of
>meaning which is valuable.

Or to *add* a shade of meaning.  As to the "value" of a shade of meaning,
this is another chimera.  When have we actually been damaged by the loss of
a distinction?  What can we no longer express that we once could?  Seems
to me we can say *more* things with our huge language than we ever could
before.  

We change the meaning of a word every time we use it, because the meaning
of a word is the sum of all the ways its understood by those who speak
and hear it.  Every time we apply a word in a new situation -- even when
saying the word to someone who's never heard it -- we have altered the mean-  
ing of the word ever so slightly.  

It's hard to accept, but meanings *do* change every day.  And we survive.

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english