NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/8523

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 10.1 KB | 229 lines

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Path: sparky!uunet!convex!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!princeton!crux!roger
From: [e-mail] (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: news@nimaster
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: crux.princeton.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:38:17 GMT
Lines: 213

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>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.

In what way is "the usage of some" different from "the usage"?  Are
there "those who count," whom one polls to determine "the usage"?

>>>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.

I am indeed unable to grasp your as-yet-undefined concept of
"correct" usage.  If dictionaries won't tell me (and good ones, such
as the OED, most certainly *do* give opinions of appropriateness, and
what people consider appropriate), how do I find out?

>"Infer" does not mean "imply" no matter what Roger's Dictionary says.

You've got a lot of nerve, young man.  Where have I ever cited "Roger's
Dictionary"?

YOU, on the other hand, cite only your own authority on what is correct
or incorrect.  (For the record, I've never said anything about "infer/imply"
either.)

>>>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.

Run that one by me again?  Lots of words have several meanings.

>"Unique" has a meaning different from that of "unusual."

And a meaning that's similar to "unusual."  It has both meanings.

Get used to it.

>If you use unique
>to mean "unusual," then you no longer have a word that means one-of-a-kind.

If you use "head" to mean the toilet on a ship, does it no longer mean
the thing on your shoulders?  Stop talking nonsense, Gabe.  Lots of
words have several meanings.

>>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 :-)

Sorry, should be "like nobody else..."

>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.

Yes, go ahead, keep talking.  What does this have to do with using
several meanings of a word?  And how do you determine which "shades"
are officially sanctioned?   I'm still waiting for you to tell me
how to determine this for even one word.

>>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

He has not.  He listed some names, and exactly one argument -- which
disagreed with his categorization of it as "no-modification."

>for blows to the head, perhaps you'd like to take that two-by-four and
>beat some manners back into your skull.

Gabe, talking like a dictator is bound to get you some strong reactions.
You have yet to give a single reason for anything you say, other than
"this is the right way, the only way."

>>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.

So it's OK to be imprecise -- or should that be "using the usage of
*some* people"? -- if YOU happen to be one of the "some"?  I sense an
inability to take it commensurate to the ability to dish it out.

>>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."

Which is hyperbole.  Next question.

>>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.

You really ought to try it.  It's the shaping force of most language.

>>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?

"Most unique items command a high price."  8-)

Seriously, though, I might in some situations.  (Not that this is strictly
the topic we were once addressing: "quite" was the modifier people were
getting all het up about.  This would seem to be a traditional pastime,
btw; that particular modifier is the crux of many arguments about the
whole issue.)

But anyway, we have seen that "unique" *does* and always has had more than
one meaning (at least since it took on the "one-of-a-kind" meaning, which
was not its original one), so the "many people believe" argument begs
all kinds of questions: which people?  Why do they believe it?  What of
all the other clearly accepted meanings?  Keep "head" in mind, and stay
awake.  And ask yourself why context, which works so well in keeping our
"head" on straight, would suddenly fail us with "unique."

>>>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.

Gabe, it's been months and months, and you *still* haven't told me how
and why it CAN be wrong.  You haven't told me what "wrong" means in this
context -- i.e., what the standard of rightness is.  Do you understand
why your arguments don't calrry much weight with me?  You have yet
to define your most basic term.

>I see the spelling "wierd" more often than "weird."  That doesn't make the
>former correct.

Of course not, because our society has a universal standard of spelling.
We do not have a universal standard of speaking or wroting, though--or
at least not one of that kind.

>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.

"It's wrong because it's wrong because I say it's wrong" is far more insolent
than anything I've ever posted, and that's the ONLY argument you've
ever brought to these discussions.

>I must say that the air of scholarship you
>comport yourself with is very persuasive to the uninitiated, but it does

Where did you get your initiation into the mysteries of linguistic
correctness, then?  Can I come too, sometime?  I'd love to learn.

Me, I read a few books.  Took a class.

>not take long for anyone to realize that at bottom you are nothing but
>a rude and mannerless individual.

Tell it to the Marines.  You're the one who wants to make all the calls
without giving a reason, to tell people if they're talking correctly
without telling them why.

Roger