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: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:48:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.014704.10604@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>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."  

That I seek out one scholarly opinion to support my "view of the week."
And lambaste the group with invective in trying to defend it.

a) "View of the week" -- this is wrong.  I consistently support the *same*
view: that the standard of usage is actual usage itself--what people say.
That the standard of "Good" usage is what good speakers and writers do.
That it is fruitless to call a usage that is widespread "wrong" just 
because you don't like it.  

b) One scholarly authority -- this is wrong.  I have so far cited AHD I,
Evans, W3NI, OED, Claiborne, and commented on Phythian as quoted by Ted.
I have also noted what Fowler (as quoted by someone else) has said, and
discussed that.

c) Lambaste the group -- I get testy when people like you simply say
"this usage is wrong" and can't even tell me how you know that.  How
would you feel if someone took a piece of work you had done and told you
it was wrong, but refused to tell you why?  Would you trust them?  Respect
them?

>The fact that people can have different opinions on 
>language?  I can certainly see why Roger would consider that lying.  Anyone

As I said just today: everyone's welcome to an opinion.  But ADVANCING
that opinion should be done with reason and argument and evidence, 
certainly in a forum like this one.  You have nothing to offer but
"This is correct, that is incorrect."  You can't tell me why.

>who disagrees with him is worthy of, in his own words, being belted in the
>head with a two-by-four.  

Another lie.  I suggested that that was what it might take to get 
YOU to address the implications of your own remarks.

>Or perhaps it is his crafty use of insolence and

Huh?

>his contemptuous attitude toward anyone who would dare to disagree with him

I am contemptuous only of those who disagree with me and shout it from
the rooftops while not bothering to tell us WHY they disagree.  I have
spent considerable effort to gather evidence here; what have YOU done
to show me you know a single thing about the topic at hand?

>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.  

And AHD and OED and Webster and Claiborne and Fowler and so on.  Too bad
you don't even deign to read the postings you criticize anymore.

>There are many others...Fowler, S&W, etc. who disagree, and

Actually,  it's hard to tell.

>their opinions are no less valid than E&E becuase you didn't happen to
>quote them.

Somebody else quoted Fowler -- both books.  As for the validity of their
opinions, my quoting them does not affect that; but their arguments are
indeed worth examining for validity.

Moreover, as I pointed out, S&W doesn't even bother with the pretense of
being a usage guide.  It is a style manual, pure and simple.  What Fowler I
calls "illiterate" and Fowler II (Gowerized) calls "ignorant" is the usage
of many great writers; do the Fowlers really mean that?

>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.

True indeed, as I pointed out as well in discussing the AHD Usage Note.
Opinions vary, as do levels of speech.  Most editors would strike "most
unique" -- though I asked my editor tonight (he's Follett's son-in-law,
no less) and he said he'd take "not quite unique," but not "quite unique."
It's clear that there's no consensus on this matter among style critics.
Lexicographers agree, though: one of the standard meanings of "unique"
is "unusual," like it or not.

So perhaps in the future you could specify the *grounds* for your
calling "most unique" "wrong." Are these stylistic grounds?  Historical
ones?  Should this be avoided in formal speech and writing, or also in
colloquial use?

>That's just bad usage.

Ain't no such animal as "*just* bad usage."  I'm afraid that Perotspeak
isn't going to change things, either: it's *not* just that simple.

>>>>(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

Why get depressed over it?  People say it.  People know what the speaker 
means.  When you read _The Wind in the Willows_, did you think less of
Toad for saying "very unique"?

>because it's in one dictionary or another doesn't mean that it's good
>usage that should be promulgated. 

But that it's in the dictionary means that people *do* use it in great 
number -- and that's what "usage" means.  It means you can say it and
be understood.

> As I've said, many fine
>dictionaries list "infer" and "imply" as synonyms, which they clearly
>are not.  

I have bad news for you: to many people, they *are* synonyms.  Their 
meaning is changing.  

>You can infer an implication, but you cannot imply an
>inference, no matter what your dictionary says.

So?  You're talking about the nouns, now, for one thing.  That's no
help.  But the point is: people have taken to saying "infer" where they
might previously have said "imply."  These shifts in meaning happen, and
have always happened.  

A good read: Lounsbury's _The Standard of English Usage_ (New Haven,
1906).  It's a chronicle of new words over the ages, and of changes in
meaning, and of the people who protested against them.  Against words
like "mob" and "donate" and "narrate" and "greed," all of which were 
called flat-out wrong by people who felt they were upholding standards
and protecting the language from decay and degeneracy.

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

By saying: It's just bad usage, without telling us how you know, and 
without telling us what you mean by "bad usage."   

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english