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: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:04:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.045736.14307@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.001709.14852@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>Moreover, a thing can be "quite unique" wrt *one* basis for comparison,

>No.  wrt *one* basis for comparison, something is either unique (one of a
>kind) or not unique.  You can't get a little bit pregnant.

I take it, then, that you've actually looked up "quite" and "unique"
in a dictionary or similar?  Again, I refer you to Evans and Evans,
who address the issue directly.

Now, having said that, what does "quite unique" have to do with the
"either/or" issue?  As I said (and you chose to delete), "quite
unique" can mean: not only unique, but also unapproached.  People
don't just use the word "unique" to mean "one-of-a-kind", simply
because such distinctions aren't made often.  Teh *degree* of
difference is also of interest in many cases.

>>>>(Besides, "unique" is often used hyperbolically, to mean "very rare."
>>>So your "quite unique" would correspond to "quite very rare".
>>No.

>Yes, "unique" is used hyperbolically to mean "very rare."  But "quite unique"
>is plain old redundant.  

In what way? If something differs from all other items in a class by,
say, .0001% of some measurement, then it is unique.  But if it's FAR 
different, then it is quite unique.

>I'll add it to the list along with "free gift"

As long as you don't care about what words mean, go ahead.  "Quite unique
has a fairly obvious meaning.  Too bad your irrelevant logic-chopping
is more important than actual standard usage.

>and "10 a.m. in the morning" and "cash money" and "foot pedals."

>>>If you mean rare, say rare.  If you mean unique, say unique.  Unless

>>Why?  Is hyperbole suddenly forbidden after three millenia of use?

>No, there's nothing wrong with hyperbole, but unnecessary pleonasm (i.e.
>that which is not employed for rhetorical purposes or to convey new
>information) is sloppy.

Great.  Now relate that to "quite unique" as justified either by Evans
or by AHD I.

>>>your thoughts are so worthless that you can afford to be imprecise,
>>>sloppy, in how you express them.

>>Once more, the snotty approach to language.

>Oh please, spare us Roger.  The point is that the word "unique" has a 
>meaning, namely "one of a kind."  

And several other meanings, as a quick trip to the dictinoary will show.

>By using the word improperly (such as
>in "more unique" and other beastly abuses), the weight of the word is
>lessened.

Bull.  By getting snippy about one meaning of a word long acknowledged
to have several meanings -- controlled by context, of course -- you
show that you're more interested in putting people down than in listening
to what they're saying.

Or are you telling me that you're not bright enough to figure out 
what "unique" means in a given context?

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: quite unique
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:58:10 GMT

In <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 any case the word has pretty much the same meaning in both cases.
>>Would you consider it an improvement to adopt yet another spelling for
>>a TV programn? The possibility for ambiguity between a computer
>      ^^^^^^^^
>Huh ?
just kidding...


>>>Another improvement is the adoption in
>>>Britain of the US meaning of "billion", rather than fostering
>>>ambiguity by continuing to fight a losing battle in favour of the
>>>British "billion".
>>
>>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 !

-or creeps in now and then.  Some Canadians even write 'programme'
when they want to appear especially scholarly.

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
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 05:27:02 GMT

I can't believe I missed this the first time around.

In article <1992Nov16.023754.9072@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.180410.20206@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>I take it, then, that you've actually looked up "quite" and "unique"
>>in a dictionary or similar?  Again, I refer you to Evans and Evans,
>>who address the issue directly.

>I have, actually.  Unique means "being the only one of its kind."
>That people also use it to mean "very unusual" doesn't mean much.

Excuse me, Gabe, but when we're discussing words, what does "X means Y"
mean, if not "people use X to mean Y"?  Is there some other source of
meaning?  If "people also use it to mean Z" doesn't mean much to you, 
how *do* you determine what a word means?

Just wondering.

Roger



Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:30:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.054810.12567@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> srinivas@lips.ecn.purdue.edu (The Abode of Wealth) writes:
>I have a question for you knowledgeable netters.

Can I try, too?  8-)

>I have noticed that people use an apostrophe in writing "1960s". What is
>right, "1960s" or "1960's"?  I feel that the use of an apostrophe is 
>wrong because when the words are used instead of numbers, "sixties" 
>is the correct word and not "sixty's". The apostrophes also creep 
>into plurals of commonly used abbreviations. What is right - "IMHOs" 
>or "IMHO's"? Using the full form is not an alternative here because
>I am using abbreviations of long technical phrases and it is very tedious to
>use the full forms a hundred times.

This is a problem of modern spelling.  Everyone has an opinion.A

Accordingly, one needs an authority, and the best one is the Chicago
Manual of Style.  Why is it the best?  Because it can stop a raging
editor at twenty paces, that's why.  (The bright orangey-red cover
helps too.)

Seriously, the Chicago Manual is a good tool for attaining consistency,
which is the greatest favor one can bestow on a reader.  (Well, cash is
nice, too, I suppose.)

Anyway, sections 6.9 and 6.10 in the 13th edn. address this:

6.9 [plurals of] _Letters, noun coinages, numbers._  So far as it
can be done without confusion, single or multiple letters used as 
words, hyphenated coinages used as nouns, and numbers (whether spelled out
or in figures) form the plural by adding _s_ alone:

  The three Rs         several YMCAs and AYHs
  thank-you-ma'ams     CODs and IOUs
  in twos and threes   the early 1920s

6.10 Abbreviations with periods, lowercase letters used as nouns, and
capital letters that would be confusing if _s_ alone were added form 
the plural with an apostrophe and an _s_:

  M.A.'s and Ph.D.'s    x's and y's    S's, A's, I's     SOS's

There you have it.  CODs, but SOS's.  Consistency?  Well, no.  Not of
any simple variety.  The Chicago rule is: use an apostrophe where its
absence would cause a problem.  When's that?  You make the call.  But
refer to the above examples as a guideline.

[The next section --6.12 to 6.23 -- ends with the following: "The
University of Chicago Press prefers its orn rule as enunciated above
(6.12, 6.15 <dealing with possessives> -- which is essentially a 
restatement of William Strunk's "Rule no. 1" in the famous _Elements
of Style_.  Te Press is willing to accept other ways of handling 
these situations, however--if they are consistenly followed throughout a 
manuscript....]

In short: make your own bed and lie in it, and remember that many 
others will lie in it too.  Find a consistent way that suits your
purposes and makes things clear.  This is ultimately the *most* important
rule of spelling and punctuation and formatting and the like; all
the rest is commentary.

Roger
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Xcultural, Xtian, Xlation
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:29:06 GMT

In article <966.18.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)  writes:
>TO: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu

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

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

>Xformer or Xfrmr for an electrical transformer
>Xfer for Transfer

xref for cross-reference.  I see that one almost as much as XING (on
street signs).

Roger


From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:51:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Organization: Hewlett-Packard SSG/CCSY-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

>idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>In article <1e83k0INN7tn@uranium.sto.pdb.sni.de> sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
>>And in spain:   UNIX is a brand of fire-extinguishers
>
>And, in the UK, at least, VAX make carpet cleaners.
...which they advertise with the slogan "Nothing sucks like a VAX" (I kid you
not).

Andrew
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: mnemonics in general
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:11:49 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de

In article <11433@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>>OK, I don't *think* I'm stupid, but how does one use "God, I need a drink"
>>to remember 3.14159?
>
>Beats me completely.  I can see how it can be used to remember 3.1415
>(by counting the letters in each words), but how it can be used to
>remember 3.14159 is beyond me.

Well, isn't "drink" one of the most time-consuming [sic] five-letter
words? It doesn't have six letters, admittedly, but it's still good
for a healthy 5.9. Cheers!
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:30:51 GMT
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <1992Nov21.211317.14509@news2.cis.umn.edu> I wrote
(replying to Roger):

  Well I guess we have a fundamental disagreement.  Most people *do* do things
  out of sheer trendiness.  Most bizspeak, entertainment speak, news, etc. is
  little else but trendiness.

In article <1992Nov21.233317.9814@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu
(Roger Lustig) writes:

> TRANSLATION: "I don't like it."  
>
> Seriously, can you back this up with an iota of evidence?  Can you
> demonstrate that fashion in word use is not universal, that it does not
> reflect actual needs or desires to express new things or ideas or
> relationships?  Have you ever studied the development of a new idiom?  

Can you demonstrate that it is, and more precisely that trendiness is no
more important now than in any other time in human history?  Can you
demonstrate that using initialisms for everything does reflect actual needs?
I can't even imagine what would count as evidence in such a demonstration.
Studying the development is very different from demonstrating a need -- unless
you have a hidden panglossian assumption that mere existence demonstrates
a need.  You complained about being labeled "panglossian", but if you have
any other argument, you haven't stated it.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:38:35 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <BxuLyG.1nI@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
<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?

Er, if your blood is really turning into ice (or whatever it is called
that is to blood as ice is to water), you won't be able to say much
anyway, will you?  :-)

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:39:07 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

I agree with Fowler that "very unique" and "most unique" aren't good
usage, but I'd make a special case for "quite unique".  It's something
of an archaism, but you can use "quite" to emphasise adjectives which are
not of degree:

"The butler lay in the hallway.  Checking his pulse, Lord Dalliwell
found that he was quite dead."

This is a different shade of meaning of "quite" from that which would
imply "fairly dead".
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:32:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.233643.27443@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:
>
>      Everyday words of English that were once trademarks (some now
>      universal, some more common in one variety of English than
>      another, some dated, all commonly written without an initial
>      capital) include aspirin, band-aid, cellophane, celluloid,
>      cornflakes, dictaphone, escalator, granola, hoover, kerosene,
>      lanolin, mimeograph, nylon, phonograph, shredded wheat, zipper.
>      Trademarks facing difficulties include Astroturf, Dacron,
>      Formica, Frisbee, Hovercraft, Jacuzzi, Laundromat, Mace, Muzak,
>      Q-Tips, Scotch Tape, Styrofoam, Teflon, Vaseline, Xerox.

Murphy Bed recently lost their protection also...the term can now be used
to refer to any bed that retracts into the wall.

Apparently in the late 19th century, it became quite common to call a 
portable camera a "Kodak," or at least ie was popular until Eastman Kodak
ran an ad compaign that went something like, "If it isn't an Eastman, it
isn't a Kodak."


--
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
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: Unique hypothesis--comments welcome!
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:21:04 GMT

In article <28342@castle.ed.ac.uk>, wex@castle.ed.ac.uk (John Wexler) writes:
> I have little use for the word "unique".  Nevertheless, I think I
> understand its meaning, and I might use it from time to time.
> 
> If it meant "unparalleled in every respect, among all the things that
> exist or have ever existed in the whole universe" then I would never be
> able to apply it to anything.  I therefore suggest that the word can
> reasonably be used to mean "unparalleled in certain important respects,
> in some domain of interest".
> 
> If you accept that, then I can argue that if thing X is unparalleled in
> more respects than thing Y, then X is more unique than Y.
> 
 			[...example deleted...]

John, we had this entire discussion on a.u.e only a few months ago.  The 
argument you have just given was hauled out then, and I disagreed with it.
I still disagree with it.  

You will not find in any dictionary the suggestion that unique means 
"unparalleled in every respect".  I don't think anyone on this newsgroup
has even suggested that.  In most dictionaries you will find a definition
of "unique" that looks something like "applicable only to what is, in some
respect, the sole existing specimen".  I took that quote from Fowler's 
_Modern English Usage_ because I admire his way with words. 

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


Marie Coffin
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill)
Subject: more and more
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:41:24 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 11-15-92 12:35


roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) replies to: 

kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante) who writes:

| >Which of the following is correct, and why?
| 
| >     a)  "There is more than one."
| 
| >     b)  "There are more than one."
|
| >CORRECT answers only, please.  Let's not waste bandwidth width

<wasted bandwidth omitted>

|| Anyway, there is more than one way to skin a cat.  But in response
|| to "How many are there?"  one might say, "There are more than one."
|| One would *certainly* say "There are more than two."
 
Let's add the reason to this.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. I say again: there are more 
ways than one to skin a cat.

The reason for the change from _is_ to _are_ follows something 
grammarians call "attraction". The sense of "more than one way" is 
plural but the verb is "attracted" to "one" and "way" which are 
singular and thus takes the singular form. 

Simply by changing the form of the phrase by changing the singular 
"way" to the plural "ways" and sticking it closer to the verb where 
its power of "attraction" is stronger induced the verb to follow it 
into the plural.

Thus, in the original question, "There _is_ more than one way" is the 
more acceptable usage than the other.

Regards: *PC* <peter.churchill@rose.com> --far enough out of Toronto!

-- More is dead, they told Henry VIII---
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001013
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
From: maj@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:01:18 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <TSOS.179.722160418@uni-duesseldorf.de>, TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
> In article <1992Nov15.001709.14852@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> 
>  [...]
>>Moreover, a thing can be "quite unique" wrt *one* basis for comparison,
>>by not even coming close to anything else.  After all, most of the comparisons
>>we do are not simply same/different; they take into account degrees of
>>difference.  
>  [...]
> 
> 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"?
> 
> Yours fuzzily,
> --
> Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
> "Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
> man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch

Both languages and washing machines would be far better without
fuzzy logic. It's the wrong way to handle uncertainty about real
events. Because it's purely formal and without any clear semantics
I think it's probably the wrong way to handle conceptual vagueness
as well.
-- 
Murray A. Jorgensen [ maj@waikato.ac.nz ]    University of Waikato
Department of Mathematics and Statistics     Hamilton, New Zealand      
__________________________________________________________________
'Tis the song of the Jubjub! the proof is complete,
if only I've stated it thrice.'
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Things go better with
Date: 22 Nov 92 06:31:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)

DT>3. My understanding is that nylon was never a trademark, but was coined
  >to be a generic.

My understanding, too.  du Pont's polyamide was a made-up term, but not
a copyright.

DT>This list could easily be made ten times as long.  My favorite is
  >Velcro.

...particularly when you realize that Velcro is a direct rip-off of the
hooks occurring on cockle-burrs and numerous other seeds.

---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                                                                                                                  
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@fury.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Arguing about language
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:09:58 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <98876@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>In article <By2MLx.Ey2@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>
>>I certainly think it's fair to set a much higher standard and expect
>>Standard English in written language.
>
>Why?
>
Why not??



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Space the final frontier" - Star Trek.
"Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong"
                                                         - The Beatles