home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!apple!apple!casseres@apple.com
- From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Subject: Re: anymore unique
- Message-ID: <28542@goofy.Apple.COM>
- Date: 28 Jul 92 22:15:05 GMT
- References: <BrHt04.Ft9@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
- Organization: Apple Computer Inc.
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <BrHt04.Ft9@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
- writes:
-
- > As for unique and other so-called noncomparables, those who insist
- > that language conform to logic often cite _more unique_ and
- > _more perfect_ as ridiculous errors on the order of being a little
- > bit pregnant or dead or whatever.
- >
- > However, language does not conform to logic, fortunately for us,
- > and unique and perfect have been used in the comparative and
- > superlative from their first introduction into the language.
- >
- > You may not like past or current usage -- my guess is that is the
- > reason many people have questions about usage -- but you are
- > stuck with it (ever try to get anybody to change the way they
- > speak?-- it ain't easy.).
-
- This is a sermon that I often preach myself. However, my objection to the
- current usage of "unique" is not so much that it isn't logical. It's that the
- current usage (equivalent to "kinda different, huh") takes a word that once had
- a specific and useful meaning, not matched by any other single word, and reduces
- it to vague interchangeability with dozens of other locutions.
-
- Moreover, it's the kind of usage that arises from someone being slovenly and
- pretentious at the same time, not the kind that shows a creative urge or lets
- the inner genius of the language herself come into play.
-
- No, I can't change the way people talk, but I can damn well complain about it.
-
- --
-
- David Casseres
- Exclaimer: Wow!
-