Trivial, but good grief

[phil_20686]

The alternative is something verbose like "unique in a very extreme (or remarkable) way". If the simple phrase "very unique" gets the point across, what's so bad about it? The purpose of language is to communicate, not to demonstrate that one has mastered a set of rules.

 

Why not use `uncommon'? A perfectly nice word that is not binary.

[barmar]

How about "unique?" How can one moderate the quality of being the only one?

Because the way in which something is the only one can be more or less surprising, exceptional, etc.

 

Suppose all but one day during the summer is in the 60's (Fahrenheit) or higher. If the outlier were 55, it would be unique, but not very remarkable. On the other hand, if it were below freezing, that would be quite surprising. I wouldn't have a problem with calling it "very unique" as a way of getting that point across succinctly.

[barmar]

Why not use `uncommon'? A perfectly nice word that is not binary.

If you're trying to emphasize something, it seems like using a LESS extreme word can hardly be the solution.

[ggwhiz]

"Very unique" or any moderator attached to unique will never be acceptable to me. It is one of my pet peeves.

 

I am by no means anywhere nearly good enough at this but improved a lot by reading Stephen King "On Writing".

 

Economy of words and I just broke all his rules.

[semeai]

"Very unique" or any moderator attached to unique will never be acceptable to me. It is one of my pet peeves.

 

Surprisingly unique

[phil_20686]

If you're trying to emphasize something, it seems like using a LESS extreme word can hardly be the solution.

 

You are using unique to emphasis the uncommonness of something. By definition a thing cannot be "very one of a kind". The English language has a variety of synonyms for uncommon, off the top of my head, rare, special, remarkable, unusual, improbable, or atypical.

 

Moreover, your example of a day with a different temperature, is actually a misuse of unique. The 55 degree day is not unique, it is manifestly of the same type as the other measurements, it is different only by degree. You cannot have a "uniquely high temperatures", or a "uniquely large bath", for a thing cannot properly be described as unique if it differs only by degree. It should be qualitatively different, rather than quantatively different.

[TimG]

"Very unique" or any moderator attached to unique will never be acceptable to me. It is one of my pet peeves.

I dislike it too. Merriam-Webster gives as the 3rd definition of unique:

 

: unusual <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch — J. D. Salinger>

[semeai]

At least we haven't heard literally unique yet, or at least I never have [with the figurative use of literally, of course]

[phil_20686]

The alternative is something verbose like "unique in a very extreme (or remarkable) way". If the simple phrase "very unique" gets the point across, what's so bad about it? The purpose of language is to communicate, not to demonstrate that one has mastered a set of rules.

 

 

If my examiner tells me to work individually, but the definition of an individual is a "unique entity", and that just means uncommon, so really he intended us to collaborate in small groups, as then our work will still be uncommon relative to the number of entries. But then we are a math class, so I look in a text book to see that counting is nothing but a unique mapping, and it follows that if I define a different mapping, it will still be uncommon, so it follows that all numbers are basically equivalent, so the whole class can collaborate and it will still be uncommon.

 

Sadly only Harvard students are smart enough to figure out that this is really what their examiners are saying...

[semeai]

Sadly only Harvard students are smart enough to figure out that this is really what their examiners are saying...

 

oh snap!

[TimG]

Sadly only Harvard students are smart enough to figure out that this is really what their examiners are saying...

barmar is, I believe, a graduate of an institute of higher learning just down the Charles from Harvard.

[semeai]

barmar is, I believe, a graduate of an institute of higher learning just down the Charles from Harvard.

 

However, a google search for "[that institution] cheating scandal" turns up no real results.

[gwnn]

Everything is different (other than indistinguishable quantum particles and so on), so everything is unique. If you establish a finite set of attributes based on which you classify stuff, no two of them will have the same attributes (provided that you chose enough relevant attributes). They will all be unique, but some more unique than others (some will differ from the rest in more attributes or to a larger extent than the rest). ;)

[mycroft]

"almost" unique?

 

Yeah, I agree with you too. But as in bridge, "never"'s never never.

[Vampyr]

Before long, "alot" will be a word and "could of" will be an acceptable variation of "could have".

 

And "If I would have [eg known]" will become an acceptable variation of "If I had". This one is one of the worst, in my opinion. But if I could eliminate just one emerging usage, I think it would be "begging the question" to mean raising or leading to the question.

[Vampyr]

"My name is Sue, how do you do?"

 

Since "How are you?" is not a question that is intended to elicit a detailed, or accurate, or even thoughtful response, I suppose the grammatical details are pretty much irrelevant.

 

I feel that while "how do you do" is not ever answered and in fact barely considered a question, "how are you" does get some response. When I first came to live in England, I was stymied by the greeting "All right?" I had no idea whether I was supposed to answer, respond in kind, respond with "hello" etc.

[squealydan]

And "If I would have [eg known]" will become an acceptable variation of "If I had". This one is one of the worst, in my opinion.

 

This seems pretty much accepted usage in North America from what I can see on television, and is spreading fast to my neck of the woods.

 

It's not only an ugly sounding way of talking with the repeated "would have"s, it adds a lot of unnecessary syllables : "if I'd taken the finesse, I'd have made my contract" vs "if I would have taken the finesse, I would have made my contract".

 

Worse, of course, is the fact that many times I have to hear "would of" twice in quick succession.

[gwnn]

And "If I would have [eg known]" will become an acceptable variation of "If I had". This one is one of the worst, in my opinion.

This form is used by the the majority of foreigners I would say. It always irritates me but I admit to doing it sometimes too (and then I become doubly irritated).

[barmar]

The one that gets me is a written transgression: "prolly" for "probably".

[Vampyr]

This form is used by the the majority of foreigners I would say. It always irritates me but I admit to doing it sometimes too (and then I become doubly irritated).

 

I have heard this from a lot of native speakers too, I am afraid. Sometimes it is my partner, and I say something like "sorry, I didn't understand that, could you repeat it in English", and then he does, but I find it unfortunate that I can't use this technique on everyone.

[barmar]

I wish people would lighten up. There's an enormous difference between spoken language and written language. Unless you're reading a prepared speech, spoken language is very informal, produced on the fly without much time to review the precise words. Whether "and" should be followed by "me" or "I" in a particular context is a relatively complex rule -- if you're speaking quickly it's easy to slip up, and some people just have a simple default for everything.

 

In addition, most of these "rules" are pretty arbitrary. The rule about not splitting infinitives is one of the most notorious. It supposedly comes from the Latin origin of English, in which infinitives were single words, and hence unsplittable. Some grammar nazis decided that even though English doesn't share this form of the infinitive, the sentence structure it implies should still be enforced. Never mind that practically everyone finds "to boldly go" more mellifluous than "to go boldly" or "boldly to go". That's because it's consistent with another rule: adjectives and adverbs normally immediately precede the word they're modifying, so putting it after or inserting "to" between them makes it more awkward sounding.

 

I'm about 2/3 through a very good book: "Thinking Fast and Slow". It's mostly about how we make decisions, but the psychological and neurological underpinnings also explain why on-the-fly utterances are not likely to obey strict rules and why it generally doesn't cause communication problems.

[gwnn]

I've been wondering about these constructions BTW. Suppose someone asks you:

 

"If you found a wallet on the street, would you return it?"

The simple way of answering this is:

"Yes, I would return it." or "No, I wouldn't return it."

But what if you want to be cute and say:

"I would be proud of myself if I would return it* but honestly I would just take the money and wouldn't bother helping society."

 

*=with the sense of "I would be proud of myself (now) if I was a person who would return it," and not "I would feel proud of myself in the hypothetical situation that I found the wallet and returned it."

 

Does this make any sense? :)

[gwnn]

Also, is it too obvious to name lose/loose? It's an epidemic.

[Vampyr]

Also, is it too obvious to name lose/loose? It's an epidemic.

 

Often paired with led/lead.

[barmar]

The real epidemic is "it's" meaning "its". However, it's also understandable -- it's an overuse of the default rule "to make a possessive, add 's to the word" -- the exception for pronouns doesn't come to mind easily, because several of them are irregular (e.g. "his", "my", and "their"). Irregular forms are learned early in life by rote, but because "its" sounds like a regular form, it's easy to fall into the default rule rather than realize that all pronouns are exceptions (for no good reason, of course -- it's another arbitrary rule).