NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/8563

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 6.3 KB | 151 lines

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Path: sparky!uunet!convex!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.cs.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!gmw1
From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:01:33 GMT
Lines: 136

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>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?

In a way, yes.  You go on the instinct of careful users of the language.
Most intelligent writers are not going to use "irregardless" or "axe" or
"most unique."

>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?

I've never once claimed that my preferences are the standard.  All my
statements are only my opinions.  I can call "axe" wrong as much as I
want.  To me, it's a dreadful usage.  That isn't going to stop a
sizable population from using it, nor do I plan to spend time trying.
But to me, it's still a bad usage, along with "most unique" and
"irregardless" and that which would call "infer" and "imply" synonyms.

(Claiborne suggests that one add "absolutely" if one wishes to
>avoid all possible confusion.)

Nah.  I'll just use "unique."

>>>>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?

As you said, it should be "like nobody else."  No verb with "like."  You
can use a verb with "as" though.  That common error was brought to the
public by the old Winston commercial.

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

And you take the PC approach to language...anything that anyone uses
somewhere that has been written down must be an ok usage.  That's
certainly not for me.

>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.

Gee Roger, why wouldn't you use "more unique" in formal speech?  After
all, according to you, it's been an accepted usage for centuries.  Don't
tell me that it's *still* questionable...

>>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.

Why wouldn't you use it if you stand so firmly behind its correctness?

>>    "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...

Handel?  Yes.  Schoenberg?  Not likely that I'll be humming them anytime
soon, but that's another matter...
>
>>Now, was it just an unusual symposium?  or was it truly one of a kind?
>
>In this case, who cares?

YOU, I should think!

Would anyone uttering that sentence really
>care that the 1974 Centenary Conference actually had a slightly higher
>attendance?  Would anyone listening care?

Huh?  Since when has the interest of the listener been a criterion for
using accurate language?

>>    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.)

Hardly an exception.  But when you respond to such postings with
"who cares?" I see no reason to provide you with any more information.
It becomes hardly worth my time, since it is clear that you respect no
opinion but your own.

>>    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.

Or in this case, positions you don't *like* can get to you.

>>>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.

Nope.  "misuse" and "slovenly" and "sloppy" are judgment
calls...points of opinion.  "Hit yourself in the head with a
two-by-four" and "can't you read?" and "aren't you bright enough to
figure it out"....that's contemptuous.


--
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