From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:16:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.173817.20080@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>What you fail to grasp is that a dictionary's listing a word as having
>>a certain meaning does not necessarily mean that such a meaning is a 
>>correct usage of the word.  You seem unable to grasp this concept.
>
>I am indeed unable to grasp your as-yet-undefined concept of
>"correct" usage.  If dictionaries won't tell me (and good ones, such 
>as the OED, most certainly *do* give opinions of appropriateness, and
>what people consider appropriate), how do I find out?

Many dictionaries are purely descriptive.  They'll list "axe" as a form
of ask and "irregardless" as a variant of regardless.  I know few people
whose visceral sense of correctness would be satisfied by that.  Yours,
perhaps.

>>>"We already have a word that means that."  Translation: they're synonyms.
>>>Guess what?  We have whole *books* of synonyms.  They're called 
>>>thesauruses (or thesauri, if you swing that way).  Could you tell me
>>>exactly when synonym became a sin? 
>
>>Never, until people start using words with *other* meanings as synonyms.
>
>Run that one by me again?  Lots of words have several meanings.

Indeed they do.  Th point is that if we have a sentence such as:

	She is a truly unique applicant.

We have no way of knowing if that means:

	She is a rather unusual applicant

		or

	She's one of a kind!  Take her!

The beauty of the word unique is that it characterizes elements that
are in a class unto themselves.  If we use it to mean *both* that and
"unusual," we no longer have a word that puts something above
everything else, which would be a definite loss of information.

>>"Unique" has a meaning different from that of "unusual."  
>
>And a meaning that's similar to "unusual."  It has both meanings.  

Mais non!

>If you use "head" to mean the toilet on a ship, does it no longer mean
>the thing on your shoulders?  Stop talking nonsense, Gabe.  Lots of
>words have several meanings.

Lots of words have several meanings, but that isn't the issue here.
We're not talking about words with completely different senses here.
We're talking about a word which has historically meant "one of a
kind" and which, through sloppy usage, has taken on a meaning of
"unusual."  There is no chance that anyone is going to confuse "head"
as a body part with 'head" the verb or "head" the toilet.  There is a
severe likelyhood of loss of information in the case of "unique," and
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the only reason
"unique" has a second meaning to some of "unusual" is that it is
constantly misused.

>>>Translation: they didn't consult Gabe Wiener first.  He knows the 
>>>English language as nobody else, and his word goes.
>
>>I'll overlook the grammatical error in that sentence :-)
>
>Sorry, should be "like nobody else..."           

Or "as nobody else does."  Unless, of course, you wish to dispute that
rule too.

>>No, it has nothing to do with consulting me.  It has to do with words' 
>>having shades of meaning that are worthy of being preserved. 
>
>Yes, go ahead, keep talking.  What does this have to do with using
>several meanings of a word?  And how do you determine which "shades"
>are officially sanctioned?   I'm still waiting for you to tell me
>how to determine this for even one word.

Sanctioned...now there's a word I love.  It can mean both to approve,
and to deny.  Gotta love it.  Also "cleave."  But anyway, I'm not into
officially sanctioning (in either meaning) any words.  I do find usage
that arises from slovenly use of the language slightly questionable.

How to determine it?  It isn't hard.  There is plenty of historical
evidence for the word meaning "one of a kind."  There is little
historical evidence to support a meaning of "unusual" except that some
people misuse it as such and some harmless drudges put it in the book.

>>We decided long ago that your usage of the word "grammar" is different
>>from that of many.  You're welcome to it, of course.
>
>So it's OK to be imprecise -- or should that be "using the usage of
>*some* people"? -- if YOU happen to be one of the "some"?  I sense an
>inability to take it commensurate to the ability to dish it out.

As if your usage of the word "grammar" is in some way superior or more
widespread?  Not.

>>Oh, go to sleep.  We aren't talking about "head" or "set" or any of those
>>words that has more definitions than Baskin-Robins has flavors.  We're
>>talking about a word with a very precise meaning...or more to the point,
>>which many people believe has a very precise meaning.  You obviously 
>>don't.  I wonder...would you yourself ever use "most unique" in your
>>writing?
>
>"Most unique items command a high price."  8-)

Well done.  About the only place I'd use it too.

>Seriously, though, I might in some situations.  (Not that this is strictly
>the topic we were once addressing: "quite" was the modifier people were
>getting all het up about.  This would seem to be a traditional pastime,
>btw; that particular modifier is the crux of many arguments about the 
>whole issue.)

In other words:  "Oh, 'most unique' is perfectly fine usage, and I'm
confident that it will prevail.  I might even use it in my own writing
in some situations...someday, maybe, but not likely."  I'll bet you a
Handel opera CD that you'd never use it in any writing of even the least
significance, any more than you'd use "less notes" or "axe."

>But anyway, we have seen that "unique" *does* and always has had more than
>one meaning (at least since it took on the "one-of-a-kind" meaning, which
>was not its original one), so the "many people believe" argument begs
>all kinds of questions: which people?  Why do they believe it?  What of
>all the other clearly accepted meanings?  Keep "head" in mind, and stay
>awake.  And ask yourself why context, which works so well in keeping our
>"head" on straight, would suddenly fail us with "unique."

Okay.  here we go.

	"We want you to head up the Schoenberg Symposium."
	"After listening to her paper, I've come to the conclusion that
	 she really has a head on her shoulders."

Little chance of confusion.

	"I enjoyed the Symposium.  it was a unique opertunity to hear so
	 many Schoenberg scholars in one place."

Now, was it just an unusual symposium?  or was it truly one of a kind?

>>I see the spelling "wierd" more often than "weird."  That doesn't make the
>>former correct.  
>
>Of course not, because our society has a universal standard of spelling.
>We do not have a universal standard of speaking or wroting, though--or 
>at least not one of that kind.

We have a universal standard of spelling?  Why, Roger?  Is there any loss
of information between "weird" and "wierd"?  between "fought" and "faught"?
Between "vinyl" and "vynil"?  Not likely, yet we have it anyway.

>>I don't recall ever stating that anyone was ignorant.
>>That I disagree with you is fine by me, but I have no intention of accusing
>>you of "not being bright enough" to understand things in context.  You
>>however, obviously take a certain pride in crafting insolent responses to
>>ideas that you don't like.  
>
>"It's wrong because it's wrong because I say it's wrong" is far more insolent
>than anything I've ever posted, and that's the ONLY argument you've
>ever brought to these discussions.

	a) no it isn't.  It's just what you choose to reduce it to.
	b) I never said "It's wrong because it's wrong because I say
	   it's wrong."
	c) Even if, _arguendo_, that had been my argument, there is a
	   difference between such a thing and "are you not bright 
	   enough to figure it out?" or "What will impress you?  A
	   blow to the head?"  Emily Post would be proud of you.

>Where did you get your initiation into the mysteries of linguistic
>correctness, then?  Can I come too, sometime?  I'd love to learn.

You should first learn how not to be crass and contemptuous.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:8595 alt.sex:36532