NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/8500

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 7.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!news.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!gmw1
From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 06:02:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 141
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixa.cc.columbia.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>That people also use it to mean "very unusual" doesn't mean much.
>
>Sure it does.  It tells you the usage of the word.

The usage of *some*, perhaps.

>>People use words incorrectly, unfortunately.
>
>Perhaps.  What does this have to do with the case of the different
>meanings of "unique"?  Again, I refer you to an unabridged dictionary,
>one that will inform you ofthe various meanings, all of them correct in
>their contexts, of this word.  I refer you also to various discussions
>of the issue you wish to sweep away by fiat.

What you fail to grasp is that a dictionary's listing a word as having
a certain meaning does not necessarily mean that such a meaning is a
correct usage of the word.  You seem unable to grasp this concept.
"Infer" does not mean "imply" no matter what Roger's Dictionary says.

>>Some people use "unique"
>>to mean "unusual" when we have a perfectly fine word "unusual" to use
>>for that.
>
>"We already have a word that means that."  Translation: they're synonyms.
>Guess what?  We have whole *books* of synonyms.  They're called
>thesauruses (or thesauri, if you swing that way).  Could you tell me
>exactly when synonym became a sin?

Never, until people start using words with *other* meanings as synonyms.
"Unique" has a meaning different from that of "unusual."  If you use unique
to mean "unusual," then you no longer have a word that means one-of-a-kind.

>Translation: they didn't consult Gabe Wiener first.  He knows the
>English language as nobody else, and his word goes.

I'll overlook the grammatical error in that sentence :-)

No, it has nothing to do with consulting me.  It has to do with words'
having shades of meaning that are worthy of being preserved.

>Do their cogent arguments from evidence impress you not at all either?
>Does anything short of a blow on the head from a two-by-four impress you,
>or are you too busy looking in the mirror at your All-Knowingness?

Their cogent arguments fail to impress me, as Ted has listed many other
sources with equally-cogent arguments with opposite points of view.  As
for blows to the head, perhaps you'd like to take that two-by-four and
beat some manners back into your skull.

>No, the standard usage that has people speaking English.  btw, do you
>know what the word "grammar" means?  Do you know that no definition
>of "grammar" (except the imprecise one you'd probably condemn if it
>weren't part of your own usage -- the one meaning "usage") can possibly
>address the "less/fewer" question?

We decided long ago that your usage of the word "grammar" is different
from that of many.  You're welcome to it, of course.

>And again, I ask you: is hyperbole forbidden?  Can one not use "unique"
>in a hyperbolic sense?  Hyperbole is a bad thing in instruction manuals
>and legal briefs, but some of us write other things as well, and some
>of us speak standard spoken English or colloquial forms similar to it.

I never said anything against hyperbole.  If you want to say "truly unique"
as a rhetorical expression, I doubt if anyone will object.  What I *do*
object to is the use of the word "unique" to mean something less than
"one of a kind."  Sort of like using "ultimate" to mean "pretty good."

>You still haven't told me what's wrong about it.  The silly sentence
>you cite above is non-standard by dint of the fact that nobody talks that
>way, and that nobody who uses standard dialects speaks anything like it.
>(Mencken observes "uniquest", btw. -- read what he has to say about
>vulgar speech.)

Vulgar speech indeed.  You're getting quite good at it.

>Now, as to words in a language having individual meanings, that's true.
>Some words have *several* individual meanings.  My stock example: "head."
>A small dictionary I have here gives 31 utterly standard meanings of the
>noun, 12 utterly standard adjectival meanings, and four for the verb.
>How on earth do we manage?  Shouldn't we be using other words most of
>the time we use "head"?  Shouldn't someone pass a law against all this
>metonymy and metaphor and hyperbole and what-not?

Oh, go to sleep.  We aren't talking about "head" or "set" or any of those
words that has more definitions than Baskin-Robins has flavors.  We're
talking about a word with a very precise meaning...or more to the point,
which many people believe has a very precise meaning.  You obviously
don't.  I wonder...would you yourself ever use "most unique" in your
writing?

>>I'm also once
>>again not surprised at your inability to disagree without being rude.
>
>Read the posting I'm responding to here.  You accuse me of all kinds of
>things I have not done -- without evidence.  You call all kinds of
>perfectly common usage "wrong" -- without evidence.  You speak of
>"people's grammatical errors", accusing them of ignorance -- without
>even knowing what you're talking about.  You call colloquialisms
>"beastly breaches of grammar."

Just because something is common usage doesn't mean that it can't be wrong.
I see the spelling "wierd" more often than "weird."  That doesn't make the
former correct.  I don't recall ever stating that anyone was ignorant.
That I disagree with you is fine by me, but I have no intention of accusing
you of "not being bright enough" to understand things in context.  You
however, obviously take a certain pride in crafting insolent responses to
ideas that you don't like.  I must say that the air of scholarship you
comport yourself with is very persuasive to the uninitiated, but it does
not take long for anyone to realize that at bottom you are nothing but
a rude and mannerless individual.

>And you call *me* rude?  Your whole approach is based on insulting
>people who are speaking English that has no flaw except for its
>lack of the Wiener Seal of Approval.

Actually, there *is* a very amusing Wiener signet (on my stationery)
bearing a large hot dog held by a hand in chain-mail with crossed
knife and fork, Latin motto, etc., but I wouldn't waste the four-color
printing approving or disapproving anyone's English, least of all that
which you seem to promulgate.

>You spatter your prejudice everywhere you go.

Everywhere I go, eh?  I doubt you have sufficient evidence to pass
such a judgment.  So far as I am aware, you know me from only two
places....alt.usage.english, and rec.music.classical.  For those who
don't know, on r.m.c Roger and I actually tend to *agree* about many
things, though every so often someone flames him there too for being
rude and uncivil.

Now I'm beginning to see why.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
[e-mail]       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