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: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:48:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.112547.22880@black.ox.ac.uk> microsoc@black.ox.ac.uk (Marc B.A. Read) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.035345.9575@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.145943.5614@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:

>>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).

>Just for starters here are the relevant extracts from the Fowlers. Before
>you flame me, Roger, I _don't_ think that these are conclusive arguments;
>but I do think that they are well written and entertaining even if wrong!
>(I'm still shaking at the memory of Roger's flames to this newcomer to
>Usenet about "concertize"....)

Why would I flame you?  I'm utterly grateful to you for all the research
and typing.  

Sorry about "concertize" -- I got peeved there by the inability of
some to walk over to the dictionary and find the word there without
any qualifications, plus the moralistic clucking of some who found its
very existence "depressing" and the like.  

>From: The King's English (HW & FG Fowler)

(A book that disapproves of "coastal" as a mixed-language barbarism,
preferring "costal."  Fowler was good, mind you, but he had his quirks.)

>"A thing is unique, or not unique; there are no degrees of uniqueness; nothing
>is ever somewhat or rather unique, though many things are are almost or in
>some respects unique. The word is a member of a depreciating series. 'Singular'
>had once the strong meaning that 'unique' has still in accurate but not in
>other writers. In consequence of slovenly use, 'singular' no longer means
>singular but merely remarkable; it is worn out; before long 'rather unique'
>will be familiar; 'unique', that is, will be worn out in turn, and we shall
>have to resort to 'unexampled' and keep that clear of qualifications as long
>as we can. [....] For the other regrettable use of 'unique', as when the
>advertisement columns offer us what they call 'unique opportunities', it may
>generally be assumed with safety that they are lying; but lying is not in
>itself a literary offence, so that with these we have nothing to do."

A few comments: "singular" is no more worn out than it was umpty years
ago when Fowler wrote that; neither is "unique."  We still use the two
words about the way that our forefathers (hah! I should speak for myself...)
used them, with no evidence of further fatigue.

Also, the "lying" argument is a moralistic reaction to hyperbole, which
goes contrary to the self-effacing manner preferred in English society.
Ad columns offer unique opportunities in self-defense against all those
inflated resumes...8-)

>From: Fowler's Modern English Usage (2nd Edn.)

>"A watertight definition or paraphrase of the word, securing it against
>confusion with all synonyms that might be suggested, is difficult to frame.
>In the first place, it is applicable only to what is in some respect the
>sole existing specimen, the precise like of which may be sought in vain.
>That gives a clear line of division between it and the many adjectives for
>which it is often ignorantly substituted - remarkable, exceptional, fabulous,
>rare, marvellous, and the like. In the qualities represented by those
>epithets there are degrees; but uniqueness is a matter of yes or no only;
>no unique thing is more or less unique than another unique thing, as a rare
>thing may be rarer or less rare than another rare thing. The adverbs that
>unique can tolerate are e.g. quite, almost, nearly, really, surely, perhaps,
>absolutely or in some respects; and it is nonsense to call anything more,
>most, very, somewhat, rather or comparatively unique. [....] "

In short, the word *can* be modified, and *can* be modified by "quite,"
so once again I'm not sure what this is doing in Ted's "no" column.

Thanks again!

Roger