NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/8555

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 13.1 KB | 307 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: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:49:28 GMT
Lines: 291

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

>>>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?

>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?

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?

>>>>"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.

>Indeed they do.  Th point is that if we have a sentence such as:

>    She is a truly unique applicant.

>We have no way of knowing if that means:

>    She is a rather unusual applicant

>        or

>    She's one of a kind!  Take her!

                or

        She's one of a kind!  Avoid her like the plague!

Of course, we *do* know that it's not your first possibility, because
the word "truly" contradicts "rather."

>The beauty of the word unique is that it characterizes elements that
>are in a class unto themselves.

a) I have different standards of beauty.

b) It has never meant exclusively that.  It has carried the sense of
"unusual" with it throughout its history.  See Claiborne or OED.

>If we use it to mean *both* that and
>"unusual," we no longer have a word that puts something above
>everything else, which would be a definite loss of information.

Loss from what?  It has *never* had that one meaning and no other.
And yet people have always been able to sort out the meaning of the
word.  (Claiborne suggests that one add "absolutely" if one wishes to
avoid all possible confusion.)

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

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

>Mais non!

Such a stunning, well-backed, thoughtful argument.  And in French, yet.
Care to tell us why Claiborne and Evans and all those dictionaries may
be disregarded, arguments and hostiry and all?

>>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.

>Lots of words have several meanings, but that isn't the issue here.
>We're not talking about words with completely different senses here.
>We're talking about a word which has historically meant "one of a
>kind" and which, through sloppy usage, has taken on a meaning of
>"unusual."

What word is that?  Surely not "unique."  "Unique" took on that second
meaning long ago, and I challenge you to provide evidence of sloppiness
when it happened.  (Of course, the OED cites a writer in 1818 who claims
that the very *use* of "unique" is sloppy.  Perhaps he's right...)

>There is no chance that anyone is going to confuse "head"
>as a body part with 'head" the verb or "head" the toilet.  There is a

How do you suppose that happens?  How do people keep them apart?

>severe likelyhood of loss of information in the case of "unique," and

Give an example where it has actually happened.  Show that confusion
was caused.  My null hypothesis is that p(loss of info) = 0.

>it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the only reason
>"unique" has a second meaning to some of "unusual" is that it is
>constantly misused.

There you go again, assuming your conclusion.  Why is the use of "unique"
to mean "unusual" a misuse?  It's a far more *common* use than any other,
as far as I can tell, and has been eqully common, and equally well-
understood, for centuries.

>>>>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..."

>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?

>>>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.

>Sanctioned...now there's a word I love.  It can mean both to approve,
>and to deny.  Gotta love it.  Also "cleave."  But anyway, I'm not into
>officially sanctioning (in either meaning) any words.  I do find usage
>that arises from slovenly use of the language slightly questionable.

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

Now, once again: show that the devlopment of the various meanings of
"unique" was the result of slovenliness.  Give evidence.

>How to determine it?  It isn't hard.  There is plenty of historical
>evidence for the word meaning "one of a kind."  There is little
>historical evidence to support a meaning of "unusual" except that some
>people misuse it as such and some harmless drudges put it in the book.

Read Claiborne.  He actually reviewed the evidence.  You're wrong.  There
is *plenty* of evidence.  Of course, if you wish to stnad by your prejudice
and simply label every occurrence of the meaning you don't like a "misuse,"
no matter how many ofthem there are, no matter who said it, no matter
when, then you can prove all kinds of things.  But again, that's assuming
your conclusion.  How did YOU, Gabe, originally determine that one meaning
of "unique" was proper, and another a "misuse"?

Oh, right.  Viscera.

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

>>*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.

>As if your usage of the word "grammar" is in some way superior or more
>widespread?  Not.

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.

>>>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-)

>Well done.  About the only place I'd use it too.

>>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.)

>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.

>>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."

>Okay.  here we go.

>    "We want you to head up the Schoenberg Symposium."
>    "After listening to her paper, I've come to the conclusion that
>     she really has a head on her shoulders."

>Little chance of confusion.

>    "I enjoyed the Symposium.  it was a unique opertunity to hear so
>     many Schoenberg scholars in one place."

And to hum so many oper-tunes from his operas...

>Now, was it just an unusual symposium?  or was it truly one of a kind?

In this case, who cares?  Would anyone uttering that sentence really
care that the 1974 Centenary Conference actually had a slightly higher
attendance?  Would anyone listening care?  What information, this side
of real trivia, would not be readily available to someone aware of the
two meanings?  What's lost here in terms of communication?  We're not
proving theorems with a sentence like that; and the *point* of the
sentence is certainly that the event was highly unusual.  One would not
want to contradict the statement with an observation about other
conferences past or future, even if, factually, there were a counterexample
to the "one-of-a-kind" assertion.

And this is, of course, how the second meaning became so widespread.
The difference between "ultra-rare" and "one-of-a-kind" is very small
and unimportant in most contexts, this one being a fine example.

>>>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.

>We have a universal standard of spelling?  Why, Roger?  Is there any loss
>of information between "weird" and "wierd"?  between "fought" and "faught"?
>Between "vinyl" and "vynil"?  Not likely, yet we have it anyway.

There's plenty of information loss -- as soon as you try to search
alphabetized information.  Spelling is not language; it's part of a
codification of language.  It has different purposes.

>>>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.

>    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.)

>    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.

>>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.

Roger