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: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:34:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.140133.25643@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.074928.24128@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>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.

>>So we must only go by some undefined instinct?  Is that it?  No rules?
>>No methods of deciding?  

>In a way, yes.  You go on the instinct of careful users of the language.

Right.  I agree.  But in practice, does this mean doing what they do
(speaking or writing) or does it mean doing what they say about
language?  I have no trouble using Edwin Newman's style and speech as
models; but his comments on language are utter tripe, for the most
part.  (Just an example.)

>Most intelligent writers are not going to use "irregardless" or "axe" or
>"most unique."

True enough.  But many good, forceful speakers *will* use those words,
especially in less-formal situations.  

>>Of course, I've never seen you say "I feel this usage is wrong."  You
>>just say "It's wrong," listening, no doubt, to your viscera.  Seems
>>like your preferences *are* the standard, eh?

>I've never once claimed that my preferences are the standard.  All my

But you've simply said "this is wrong" or "This is a misuse," without
alluding to the source of your opinion in preference.

>statements are only my opinions.  I can call "axe" wrong as much as I
>want. 

Well, could you do us a favor and couch your opinions in language
usually used for opinions?  You know, things like "I think" and 
"I don't like."  

when you say "this is wrong," you imply that there is a standard
you are using that is something other than your preference.  When 
I'm offered blue cheese, I don't say it's wrong.  I say I don't like it.

> To me, it's a dreadful usage.  That isn't going to stop a
>sizable population from using it, nor do I plan to spend time trying.

Foolish me.  And I thought your postings here -- saying "Usage X
is wrong" or "construction Y is a misuse of the word" were just that:
attempts to change people's language use.

>But to me, it's still a bad usage, along with "most unique" and
>"irregardless" and that which would call "infer" and "imply" synonyms.

Now we're cooking with gas!  You don't like these usages, and so you
don't use them.  As an editor, you might revise text to eliminate them
(depending on whose prose you were editing).  We're in complete
agreement here.

(btw, I had a long talk with my editor last night; he and I came 
to an agreement on their being a long list of things that we 
wouldn't do, but wouldn't edit out of other people's prose.  A
cardinal rule of editing, according to Eric, is that one should be 
able to imagine the writer's voice.)

>(Claiborne suggests that one add "absolutely" if one wishes to
>>avoid all possible confusion.)

>Nah.  I'll just use "unique."

But be careful.  It's a jungle out there.

>>>>>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.

>>Frankly, I think that eliding the copula, especially in a modifying clause,
>>doesn't change much about the sentence.  Oh, and -- WHAT rule?

>As you said, it should be "like nobody else."  No verb with "like."  You
>can use a verb with "as" though.  That common error was brought to the
>public by the old Winston commercial.

Back to square one, I see.  If it's such an error, how come so many
of the "careful writers" use it?
I have examples from Southey, Keats, Emily Bronte,
Dickens (in a letter), and Darwin before me; Shakespeare and Newman and 
William Morris examples are also found in OED.  Fowler says it's not
an error, but a matter of preference, Evans and Evans add EB 11th Ed.,
More, Sidney, Dryden, Smollett, Burns, Coleridge, Shelley, Thackeray,
Kipling, Shaw, Wells, Masefield, and Maugham, and state that "like"
as conjunction is always acceptable, and that those who object are in
a minority.  Evans and Evans also note that Furnivall, the great 
scholar of the language in the 19th C, endorsed it.

>>Once more with the insults and prejudice.  You wanted prejudice?  Here
>>it is: a usage that Gabe doesn't approve of is "slovenly."  

>And you take the PC approach to language...anything that anyone uses
>somewhere that has been written down must be an ok usage.  That's 

See above: I do no such thing.  Anything that *lots* of people use
with little or no misunderstanding is by *definition* usage.  

>certainly not for me.

Nor for me, as I've stated over and over again.  (Oh, and "PC" is
obviously being used as an insult here, and one that's hopelessly
wide of the mark.)

>>No, it's more *precise.*  By YOUR standards.  Also by the standards
>>of people who discuss points of language.  Calling syntax or usage
>>"grammar" in a discussion of word change and evolution is at least
>>as sloppy -- by any standard I can think of -- as using "more unique"
>>in formal speech.

>Gee Roger, why wouldn't you use "more unique" in formal speech?  After
>all, according to you, it's been an accepted usage for centuries.  Don't

Where did I say that?  I said nothing ofthe sort -- not wrt formal
speech!

>tell me that it's *still* questionable...

No, just uncommon in formal situations.

>>>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."

>>Not with Wilson Follett's son-in-law editing me...  8-)  But of course
>>you're right.  I wouldn't use it there.  I might use it in informal 
>>speech or a letter, though.          

>Why wouldn't you use it if you stand so firmly behind its correctness?

Because it's correct IN SOME SETTINGS.  Colorful similes and words like
"humungous" and "all-fired" are certainly correct, but I wouldn't use them
in liner notes either.  

Gabe, there are different KINDS of speech, which are used in different 
situations, idfferent times and places, with different audiences.

>>>	"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?

>>In this case, who cares?  

>YOU, I should think!

Why?  What difference does it make?

>Would anyone uttering that sentence really
>>care that the 1974 Centenary Conference actually had a slightly higher
>>attendance?  Would anyone listening care? 

>Huh?  Since when has the interest of the listener been a criterion for
>using accurate language?

Since forever, Gabe.  You worry about accuracy when inaccuracy would 
matter.  Besides, what matters to the listener shouild be of
paramount importance to the speaker.

>>>	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."

>>What *else* have you said?  What arguments about this word have you
>>borught to the table?  What evidence?  (Note: the current posting
>>is something of an exception.)

>Hardly an exception.  But when you respond to such postings with
>"who cares?" I see no reason to provide you with any more information.

That was a serious question, Gabe.  What difference does the distinction
make in real life?  Language change happens out there in real life,
not in academies; and if a distinction doesn't matter, it will not
be respected.  

>It becomes hardly worth my time, since it is clear that you respect no
>opinion but your own.

On the contrary, Gabe: I WANT to know why you say the things you say.
You tell me what you think is right or wrong, but you don't tell me how
you got there.

>>>	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.

>>You know, Gabe, I started out cordially enough.  But after a while
>>the repeated, unbacked assertions can get to one.

>Or in this case, positions you don't *like* can get to you.

I don't like them because they are presented (or so it seemed -- 
weren't you imprecise in using "Wrong" when you meant "not my style"?)
as more than positions, but with less than the support that a 
worthwhile position would necessarily be able to muster.

>>>>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.

>>Funny, "misuse" and "slovenly" and "sloppy" all sound pretty contemptuous
>>to me.

>Nope.  "misuse" and "slovenly" and "sloppy" are judgment
>calls...points of opinion.  

So tell me about some slovenly or sloppy things you're *not*
contemptuous of.

>"Hit yourself in the head with a
>two-by-four" and "can't you read?" and "aren't you bright enough to
>figure it out"....that's contemptuous.

Only in self-defense, my friend -- and, as it turns out, against your
imprecise language.  You were using mighty odd terms to express opinions
with.

Roger