From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:47:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.210423.11779@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>They are opinions... to some, using unique to mean "one of a kind" is wrong
>>(not me me).  To others, using unique to mean something *other* than "one of
>>a kind" is wrong.  Except to Roger, of course, who takes certain pleasure in
>>seeking out one scholarly opinion to support his view of the week, and then
>>lambasting the group with invective in trying to defend it.
>
>Stop lying.

Actually, I'm sitting up rather straight.

But seriously folks, I'm curious to know what in the above paragraph Roger
considers "lying."  The fact that people can have different opinions on 
language?  I can certainly see why Roger would consider that lying.  Anyone
who disagrees with him is worthy of, in his own words, being belted in the
head with a two-by-four.  Or perhaps it is his crafty use of insolence and
his contemptuous attitude toward anyone who would dare to disagree with him
and his scholarship?  Well, I needn't do more than simply point to it, as
it lies naked for all to see.

>I have so far posted *six* scholarly opinions, and have sought in vain for
>one that contradicts my original assertion about "quite unique."  

*six* scholarly opinions: Roger, Roger, Roger, Roger, Roger, and
Roger.  Then there was the Evans and Evans quote, which is one
opinion.  There are many others...Fowler, S&W, etc. who disagree, and
their opinions are no less valid than E&E becuase you didn't happen to
quote them.

As for "quite unique," we've just spend the last few posts arguing
about the meaning of "unique."  Go back a few frames and you'll see
that I mentioned that I have no problems with "quite unique."  Same as
saying "It's quite the ultimate."  "Most unique" is a different story.
That's just bad usage.

>>>(I'm still shaking at the memory of Roger's flames to this newcomer
to >>>Usenet about "concertize"....)  > >>A pity, isn't it.  > >What's
a pity?  That people can't walk over to the dictionary (or hook up
>with the on-line OED)?  That whole issue was avoidable, and the
people who >spoke of that usage as being "depressing," "ugly," etc.
might have saved >their breath.

But to many, the usage "most unique" *is* ugly, depressing, etc.  Just
because it's in one dictionary or another doesn't mean that it's good
usage that should be promulgated.  As I've said, many fine
dictionaries list "infer" and "imply" as synonyms, which they clearly
are not.  You can infer an implication, but you cannot imply an
inference, no matter what your dictionary says.

...Still waiting for Roger to tell me where exactly I "spatter my prejudice
everywhere I go"....  


--
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