HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:55:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.094818.5629@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>RL>(Note that "unique" *really* means "singular,"
>> "rare," etc. as well as "one-of-a-kind.")  

>Not necessarily so, Roger.  I suggest you read up on this in Webster's usage
>guide before making this mistake again!

I have now read up on it in several authoritative sources.  Three recent
unabridged dictionaries (Webster 3rd New Int'l, Random House 2nd Ed., 
and AHD 3rd Ed.) simply give "not typical, unusual" or "unusual, notable"
among their definitions.  Webster gives Arthur Miller's "She's the most
unique person I've ever known" (referring to you-know-who, I'm sure) as
an example without comment.  (What does Miller mean?  I bet it's "She's
unique in more different ways, she has more aspects that set her apart from
other people, than anyone else."  "Most unique" says that concisely.)

Claiborne, having done his research, shows that "unique" has been used
in the sense of "remarkable, unusual" since shortly after its modern
appearance in the late 18th C.  He and OED give examples from Conan Doyle,
Chesterton, and Kenneth Grahame (Toad!) using "very unique" and the like.
He concludes that "Unique, in short, no longer has an absolutely unique
meaning."

Now, just what does Webster's usage guide say?  That one *shouldn't* 
use this meaning of the word?  Perhaps; but if they tell me that it
*doesn't* have this meaning, they're simply wrong, and the evidence
against them is overwhelming.

>RL>I use "unique" to mean 
>> "one-of-a-kind" when the context makes that meaning clear.  I'm also
>> pretty good at fashioning appropriate contexts, they tell me.  

>Roger, you little linguistic jack-of-all-trades you, they're right about this:
>you *do* keep changing meanings to fit contexts.

Where do I say that?  For that matter, where do I *do* that?  I don't change
meanings, nor do I tend to use words outside of their generally accepted
meanings.  That includes "unique."  If Webster wishes to tell me I
*shouldn't* use one of the standard meanings (secundam Webster, no less)
then I'd like a good reason why, one in concord with the facts about
current and historical usage of the word.

>RL> btw, I don't use "unique" to mean anything other than what my 
>> dictionary gives as its meanings.  That's not *because* the dictionary
>> says that; just happens to be that way.   

>Eh?  "Just happens to be that way"?  What a coincidence!

Yup.  I learned to write by reading.  Seems to have been a pretty good way 
to learn; when I compare my use of a word to what the dictionary lists,
I'm usually pretty close to this or that meaning.  

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:56:40 GMT

In <1992Nov16.044517.15622@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>If you use "unique" to mean "rare" or "unusual" or "a nice knockdown
>argument", then what word will you use when you really mean "unique"?

If you use 'freezing' to mean 'really cold' as in 'I'm freezing', then
what word will you use when you really mean freezing?

Werner
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Take a shave
Date: 16 Nov 92 12:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)


RZ>In the morning, I will go and shave (unless it's Saturday).  My
  >father-in-law, on the other hand, will be heard saying, "I think
  >I will go and take a shave."

RZ>I will go and take a shower, or I will shower, but to take a shave?

If someone else (a barber) is providing shaving service, one might
"take" a shave.  My 2. worth.

BTW, you _do_ know who shaves the barber in the town where everybody who
doesn't shave themselves gets shaved by the barber?  <G>

---
 . QMPro 1.0 07-2042 . ...from San Jose, CA
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Take a shave
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:41:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov16.143327.23947@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>I for one will "take a shower," and I will "shave," but I will never
>"take a shave."  I also won't "take a haircut" or "take a meeting,"
>other expressions heard every so often...

But will you take a powder?  

Anybody know where that phrase came from?



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: microsoc@black.ox.ac.uk (Marc B.A. Read)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:25:47 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Service, 13 Banbury Rd, Oxford, U
Originator: microsoc@black

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:
>
>>I have done some research on the U-word.  Herewith is the score.  
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	[lots deleted]
>
>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).

	[lots more deleted]

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"....)

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

"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."

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. [....] "

Yours,

	Marc
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:42:29 GMT

In <By3FLH.DxM@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

>In article <BxzJ11.5Ao@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umjaco19@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Martin Andreas Jacobs) writes:
>>In article <Bxy9Gy.How@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>>>In <28361@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>At last! Before you know it, we'll have you spelling 'favor' correctly.
>>                                                       ^^^^^
>>The last time I checked, 'favour' was still spelled with a 'u' in Canada !
>>
>Capital! Go for it Martin!  Favour is spelled with a 'u' in most places
>around the world. 

In most places perhaps, but certainly not by most people.

>Werner showed his ignorance (as do most Americans) of
>the correct spelling of favour! It is unfortunate that Americans have
>corrupted the written language.

If that's corruption, you should put the 'u' back in governour.

Werner

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:30:07 GMT

In <28508@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

[.... on program(me)]
>That provided the opportunity. The choice was whether to follow Us
>usage, to stick witht UK usage, or to exploit the possibility of a
>distinction. Hundreds of writers spontaneously and independently took
>the opportunity to make the distinction, in order to avoid the
>ambiguities which had sometimes troubled them, and hundreds more
>appreciated and approved of the change, and adopted it themselves.

I don't believe this distinction adds anything useful to the language.
Using a word with its usual meaning in a specific discipline is not
reason enough to change its spelling, unless trademarks are involved.
What sets 'computer program' apart from 'research program' or 'TV
program' or 'concert program' (other than the modifier, obviously)?

It sounds like you are just making an excuse for leaving off the -me
because you are loathe to accept the fact that occasionally the
British adopt a 'corrupt' American usage or spelling.

Werner
From: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: axe (was Re: quite unique research?)
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:22:47 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>>|> In that vain, "most unique" would probably still
             ^^^^ nothing intravenous here!
>>|> lose out, as would "axe" and "less items" and a whole lot of others
>>|> that you have at one time or another have claimed to be acceptable.
>
>>Pardon me, I just got here.  But what is supposed to be wrong
>>with the word "axe" ?   I've always understood it to be 
>>a perfectly good alternate spelling of "ax".
>
>You just *had* to axe, didn't you?  8-)

You can just *bet* that's the way our retiring (but not shy) vice-president
spells it!

--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077
From: meachem@acsu.buffalo.edu (The Meach)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:13:46 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <TSOS.183.722522919@uni-duesseldorf.de> TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.232920.25852@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
> [...]
>>However, that's a long way from saying that *other* people are doing something
>>bad by using this or that word.  People are generally doing the best they
>>can when they speak, and generally have good and sufficient reasons for
>>using the words they use, and avoiding the words they don't.  
>
>Felix America!
>
>I wish this were true for many speakers that I know. I'm sure that your
>statement is simply wrong for a lot of (native) German speakers; my
>impression is (and I ascertained this impression on frequent occasions)
>that this isn't fundamentally different in Britain (contradictions
>welcome!); and I honestly didn't notice this attitude of "doing the best
>they can" -- wrt the language! -- when I was in the US. But then, my
>insight is limited.
>
>Or were you kidding, Roger?
>
>I really wish people *would* do their best, take care of their language,
>choose their words considerately. Someone -- not me, of course, and I'm
>not going to put all the blame on the teachers -- should make the folks
>aware of the subtleties of their language; then, if they still want to
>violate the "traditional rules", that's fine by me. (Almost.) 

Oh, my!  Am I really about to disagree with *you*, Detlef?

WRT *spoken* language, I really have to agree with Roger that people *do*
take care with their language. . . at least within the contexts that they
are provided with by the whole variety of accidents of birth, locale,
education, what have you!  When I was studying German, I once had an
instructor who was from Hamburg. . . her attitude was that she knew the
one correct way to speak German.  Since I had first learned the language
living in Austria, and then had many of my 'bad habits' reinforced
in Bayern, she was constantly critical of my usage in class, and refused
to speak German with me at all outside of the classroom.  I'd hate to
meet her now, after six years in a small town in the Rhoengebiet!

Contributions to language arise from so many sources. . . most of which
enrich, rather than detracting!

Certainly, _formal_ written language needs to hold to some standards,
although even those need not be rigidly inflexible [nice redundancy, that!].

Show me a 'tradition rule' that consistenly bars violation. . .

Jo [not really cranky today. . . but I *do* say "This skirt needs hemmed"!]
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Unique hypothesis--comments welcome!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:05:01 GMT

In <1992Nov18.132104@IASTATE.EDU> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:

>Using that definition, your usage of "more unique" to mean something like
>"unparalleled in more respects" cannot be justified.  I don't think your
>usage can be justified by the common meaning of the word "more" either.  
>For example, we don't say that one antibiotic is more effective than 
>another if we really mean that it is effective against more different kinds
>of bacteria.  

Perhaps you don't, but it's pretty common usage in my experience. Certainly
a thing is more desirable if it is desirable in more respects.

>If you want to say "unique in more respects", then say it. 

That's preferable to my ears too, but if you want to say "more unique"
then say it.

Werner
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:40:17 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov16.143026.23853@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>>(I'm still shaking at the memory of Roger's flames to this newcomer to
>>Usenet about "concertize"....)
>
>A pity, isn't it.  

Just look at it as being Rogerized.



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: What is wrong with "rule of thumb" ?
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:46:38 GMT
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Nov9.203236.10357@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange) wrote:
> 
> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
> : In article <1992Nov2.160251.29355@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
> : lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange) wrote:
> : > I would strike "rule of thumb" not out of any hypersensitivity to
> : > women's issues, but simply because the phrase is hackneyed, worn-out,
> : > overused, dull, cliche, and so on.
> : 
> : Then what would you use in its place?
> 
> Simply "rule."  But I do confess some offhandedness; the context
> might have suggested even better substitutes for "rule of thumb."
> 
> I too was unaware of the brutal origins of the phrase, but I think
> that most readers also don't know where it came from.  For that
> reason, eschewing it because it is politically incorrect
> seemed farfetched to me.

Someone else stated to me (in email) that the supposed brutal origins of
the phrase in an old law that sanctioned wife-beating are in fact
folk-etymology.  Unless someone can actually cite the supposed law I think
it's folk-etymology too.

I have always believed the origin of "rule of thumb" is the rule that says
the last joint of the thumb is about an inch long.

In any case, I agree that it would be foolish to avoid this useful phrase
just because some people think it has a brutal origin that hardly anyone
else knows about.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Xcultural, Xtian, Xlation...more?
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:56:43 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Fellow sages:

I'm trying to assemble all the uses of "X" I can find along the lines
of

	Xcultural	(trans-, cross-, inter-cultural)
	Xtian		(Christian)
	Xlation		(translation)
	...		...

in addition to the older Xing and Xmas.  Note that the "X" actually
represents diverse syllables.  Additions invited; these can't be
all of them.
-- 
-Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> {Sometimes you have to look reality straight
 OPINIONS ARE MY OWN            {in the eye, and deny it. - G. Keillor 


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:50:28 GMT

In article <TSOS.179.722160418@uni-duesseldorf.de> TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
>
>The times of the clear "unique"/"not unique" distinction are over.
>If there is fuzzy logic in every washing machine you can buy, why
>shouldn't it be in the language as well? English couldn't survive
>on the world market if it ignored the modern concepts.
>
>And speakers will always (have to) adapt to their language. So it's
>time for everyone to get fuzzy. Or should I say "quite fuzzy"?

Even fuzzy logic is implemented, in computer chips, by very unfuzzy
"1" and "0" states.

I agree much of life is shades of grey (and even better, of all
the colours of the rainbow).  But some things ARE black, and some
ARE white, and a language that doesn't recognize that also can't
survive.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:29:41 GMT

In <28508@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>Yes, often, especially in posting from the US. A spelling case in
>point is lose/loose and break/brake. 

I take it (since you're from the UK) that you are referring to a case
with two errors as in 'my break cable is lose' or are you really
offering two examples. I can't seem to master that British syntax.

Werner
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:30:52 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov18.063613.2724@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>Words 
>like donate, narrate, reliable, resurrect, greed, tireless, loan (as verb),
>female, enviable -- all these were attacked with at least the venom 
>we have seen spat at "pro-active" and "concertize" recently -- and
>the misinformation in the arguments against these words was just 
>the same sort.

Roger, are you saying that no one has the right to dislike a particular
word?  That we must warmly embrace them all, simply because other people
are using them?  That if we dare to express an unfavorable opinion, we
will -- at least in this discussion group -- be informed that we're full
of, and I quote you here, "bullshit"?



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: j..barrett@madness.network23.com (J. Barrett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: typing faster
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:14:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Terminal Madness BBS - Newport, RI - 401-848-9069
Reply-To: j..barrett@madness.network23.com (J. Barrett) 

AJH>From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
AJH>Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
AJH>Subject: Re: i am expressing myself in lower-case
AJH>Message-ID: <1992Nov17.132411.16786@dg-rtp.dg.com>
AJH>Date: 17 Nov 92 13:24:11 GMT

AJH>Oh come on.  One can type quicker in lower case, upper case or in mixed
AJH>case.  Are you trying to say quicker can only be typed in lower case?

AJH>I suspect that people type in lower case because it allows them to type
AJH>more quickly.
Hi a. jing,
If one wanted to type faster they would abbreviate a lot more than
normal. 4=for, 2=to/two/too, u=you, etc.
i've often used just one letter, no vowels and not many can follow.
        j.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . We all live in a yellow subroutine.
                                          
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english