From: scotty@netcom.com (J Scott Peter)
Subject: Re: anymore unique
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 09:06:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <4579@sersun1.essex.ac.uk> tysoj@essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.135906@IASTATE.EDU> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
>>In article <BrHt04.Ft9@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
>>writes:
>>Your statements about language and logic are silly.  Either the word "unique"
>>means "the only one of its kind" or it doesn't.  If it does, then "more unique"
>>doesn't mean anything.  If "unique" simply means "unusual" then "more unique"
>>does have meaning.  As I've already pointed out, there seems to be some
>>disagreement on the meaning of the word.  Webster's takes a rather liberal view
>>of the meaning of "unique", but other equally valid sources do not.  
>>
>This is the kind of nonsense up with which I cannot put.  *Why* must
>unique mean what you say it uniquely does?  I mean, you might prefer
>things that way, but wishing don't make it so!

It seems to me that you didn't make an effort to understand (or even read)
Baron's point.  He _didn't_ give a definition of "unique" and say that
his was the only valid one.  He said that there are alternate definitions
of it, but that whichever definition you pick, you have to use the word
consistently.
>
>There are important ways in which language is like logic, but this is
>not one of them.  Using a modifier with a word like 'unique' or 'silent'
>is a useful resource for speakers, it allows them to  express highly
>nuanced notions: 'this thing is way beyond plain rare, similar objects
>exist, but very few quite like this, that one over there for example
>is fine of its kind, but this is more unique' and so on.

How does this make language unlike logic?  What do you mean by "unlike
logic"?  Do you mean that it does not have to be consistent?That seems to
be the aspect of logic you're objecting to in language.

>Would you allow almost unique?  If you do, I think you will find you *have
>to* allow 'more' and 'less' unique.

This is obviously false.  One can be "almost dead", but not "more" or "less"
dead.  Do you understand?  If "unique" means "unusual", then there can be
degrees of it.  If it means "one of a kind", there are only two
possibilities: yes or no.

Actually, I have vacillated about the definition.  I used "very unique" in
the past, because I had the idea that it was almost a synonym for "unusual".
But upon reflection, I've come to the conclusion that there are many words
for "unusual", but only one for "one of a kind".  "Unique" is unique.

>>It is true that many people say "more unique", but that does not make such
>>usage correct.  Many people use "alright" and "irregardless" also; I may be
>>"stuck with it" in the sense that I cannot change their behavior, but on the
>>other hand I need not imitate it.
>>
>But who is asking you to imitate it?  You demand that other speakers imitate
>you, if they want to be 'correct' that is.  Either you have a magic
>formula for telling us what is correct usage (other than the fact that
>some speaker said it and felt on reflection that it was correct) or you
>are a linguistic shaman, in which case, move over, the scientists have
>been here for some time.

Who is anyone to suggest what is correct?  Anyone who thinks he has the right
answer.  Persuasion is not accomplished by blind assertions or magic
formulas.  It's done by giving reasons.  That's what I saw Baron do.  He
explained the reason behind his opinion.  If you think he's wrong, you should
give the reason _why_, not just ask "Who are you to...".

If you think there are no principles to guide correct usage, and everyone
should just say what he wants, why do you read and post to alt.usage.english?
It seems to me that this is a place for people who want to actually discuss
what the best way is to use the language.
-- 
J Scott Peter XXXIII  // "Instantiating new solutions in the emerging arena
scotty@netcom.com    // of transcending the de-facto horizons of industry-
Las Anjealous       // standard open paradigms."
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA