NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/8588

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 1.9 KB | 39 lines

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: [e-mail] (Nick Leverton)
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!netsys!ibmpcug!pipex!demon!warren.demon.co.uk!leveret
Subject: Re: quite unique
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: Indexed; Access: Random.
Lines: 25
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:34:14 +0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>>"It's not quite unique -- there's a machine in Colorado that does much
>>the same thing -- but it's not exactly commonplace, all the same."
>
>Why is this better than "It's not unique"?  You've just added a
>useless word, just weighed down your text unnecessarily.  I'd say
>something like:  "It's uncommon, but not unique; there's a machine
>in Colorado that does much the same thing."

I see a qualifier such as "not quite unique" or "almost unique" as being
different from a qualifier such as "relatively", "partially", or
"totally" unique. The first two examples do not imply degrees of
uniqueness - I have no quibble with "unique"  being only a two-state
toggle :-) Their place comes in discussion or denial of the subject's
uniqueness, as in the example given.

"It's almost unique" is a simple and clear way of saying that "it's one
of perhaps only two or three but certainly very few that are the same".
This usage doesn't dilute the meaning of the word "unique" itself. Were
he alive today I would call Fowler as expert witness :-), with reference
to the many other usages which he justified on the grounds of usefulness
as long as they were neither cumbersome, pretentious nor malformed.

Nick.                                                           {{jm,rn}}