I would say that more unique in that context is a good example of understanding a rule well enough to break it. Most people who say something like "very different" mean different and most people who say "seamless transition" at my job mean "pretty smooth transition." But there are times when one does mean "more unique," "very different," or "seamless transition." As someone said earlier, good writers (and editors) are the ones who can usually break rules well.
About rules: In serious documents such as statutes, there is a need for language which is clearly understandable and remains so. Hence the need for rules. The same applies to documents in the sciences. I don't know whether it applies in popular music or in art criticism.
I would say that more unique in that context is a good example of understanding a rule well enough to break it. Most people who say something like "very different" mean different and most people who say "seamless transition" at my job mean "pretty smooth transition." But there are times when one does mean "more unique," "very different," or "seamless transition." As someone said earlier, good writers (and editors) are the ones who can usually break rules well.
I think people naturally use modifiers with unique because it makes sense to them. I was doing it long before I discovered there was some supposed rule against it.
While we are here, are ANY tautologies permitted? “Various different” really grates because various things are ALWAYS different and vice-versa,
While we’re here, and if I haven’t mentioned it before, all qualifications of unique are an offence. Not merely an error, they are offensive.
Lots of people don't like them, but offensive is very unique.
I would defend it that while a single species of bird that only eats salted peanuts would be unique, one which only ate peanuts and also only nested in dead ash trees would be more unique.
That would be a form of set algebra, in which the set of birds that only eat salted peanuts and nest in dead ash trees is a subset of those birds that only eat salted peanuts. I’m sure there is a neater way to express it.
While we are here, are ANY tautologies permitted? “Various different” really grates because various things are ALWAYS different and vice-versa,
While we’re here, and if I haven’t mentioned it before, all qualifications of unique are an offence. Not merely an error, they are offensive.
Lots of people don't like them, but offensive is very unique.
I would defend it that while a single species of bird that only eats salted peanuts would be unique, one which only ate peanuts and also only nested in dead ash trees would be more unique.
That would be a form of set algebra, in which the set of birds that only eat salted peanuts and nest in dead ash trees is a subset of those birds that only eat salted peanuts. I’m sure there is a neater way to express it.
Assuming both birds exist. If only one does, it's unique, but the one is more unique than the other.
To further illustrate - suppose both birdss exist but one bird only eats salted peanuts, and the other only eats hickory dry roasted peanuts, only nests in dead ash trees and has three eyes. The latter bird is the more unique.
Both of them are probably extinct as well but you get the point.
I think people naturally use modifiers with unique because it makes sense to them. I was doing it long before I discovered there was some supposed rule against it.
I think that one's partially a debate between whether unique means "very different" or "one of a kind." If it literally means one of a kind, then it's not useful to say it's more one of a kind than another. It used to mean one thing but now mostly means the other.
I think people naturally use modifiers with unique because it makes sense to them. I was doing it long before I discovered there was some supposed rule against it.
I think that one's partially a debate between whether unique means "very different" or "one of a kind." If it literally means one of a kind, then it's not useful to say it's more one of a kind than another. It used to mean one thing but now mostly means the other.
My dictionary says it means both, with the “one of a kind” meaning attested to as early as the 16th C., and the “very different” meaning being attested to as early as the 19th C.
I think people naturally use modifiers with unique because it makes sense to them. I was doing it long before I discovered there was some supposed rule against it.
I think that one's partially a debate between whether unique means "very different" or "one of a kind." If it literally means one of a kind, then it's not useful to say it's more one of a kind than another. It used to mean one thing but now mostly means the other.
It means whatever people use it to mean.
And I still maintain that it can take a modifier with the "one of a kind" meaning - the modifier refers to the gulf between it and the next most similar, but different, entities.
I think the original 16th century usage trumps the watered down 19c. usage. I use "unique" to mean one of a kind. There other ways to signify difference.
I think the original 16th century usage trumps the watered down 19c. usage. I use "unique" to mean one of a kind. There other ways to signify difference.
I don’t see how one recognized definition can “trump” another recognized definition. Words can have multiple meanings or multiple shades of meaning. It happens all the time; we know from things like context which definition applies.
It happens all the time; we know from things like context which definition applies.
Except that we don't always know from context; and even when we can work it out it's a bit of extra mental load. (Every time I read or hear the word "despise" I have to tune out a moment to decide whether the speaker just means "hate" but doesn't think "hate" is sufficiently emphatic.)
It happens all the time; we know from things like context which definition applies.
Except that we don't always know from context; and even when we can work it out it's a bit of extra mental load. (Every time I read or hear the word "despise" I have to tune out a moment to decide whether the speaker just means "hate" but doesn't think "hate" is sufficiently emphatic.)
I guess I live either a charmed or oblivious life, as I rarely find myself needing to expend that sort of energy.
And given that, at least in Merriam-Webster, the primary definition of despise is “to strongly dislike or hate,” and I rarely if ever in day-to-day life hear the word used with the meaning of “to look down on or regard as worthless or distasteful,” it doesn’t typically present a problem for me.
I find despise, dislike and hate are quite distinct and different. Hate is the frothing at the mouth, anger driven emotional one, despise is a colder, intellectual reaction while dislike is the simple opposite to liking something or someone. They do overlap, but I can usually separate them.
Mathematicians sometimes speak of something as being unique within a specified context. For example, within the set of positive integers, the only number that has an inverse is 1: 1*1 = 1, but within the set of all integers, it is not unique, as -1 * -1 = 1. John Doe may be uniquely the tallest man in Texas, but he may not be the tallest man in the world, so his uniqueness depends on context.
About rules: In serious documents such as statutes, there is a need for language which is clearly understandable and remains so. Hence the need for rules. The same applies to documents in the sciences. I don't know whether it applies in popular music or in art criticism.
Given the length of time that the Supreme Court has spent arguing about exactly what "clearly understandable" language in serious documents such as statutes actually means, I'm not sure that these "serious documents" are as immune from small changes in understanding of meaning as you might prefer.
Comments
I think people naturally use modifiers with unique because it makes sense to them. I was doing it long before I discovered there was some supposed rule against it.
That would be a form of set algebra, in which the set of birds that only eat salted peanuts and nest in dead ash trees is a subset of those birds that only eat salted peanuts. I’m sure there is a neater way to express it.
Assuming both birds exist. If only one does, it's unique, but the one is more unique than the other.
Both of them are probably extinct as well but you get the point.
I think that one's partially a debate between whether unique means "very different" or "one of a kind." If it literally means one of a kind, then it's not useful to say it's more one of a kind than another. It used to mean one thing but now mostly means the other.
It means whatever people use it to mean.
And I still maintain that it can take a modifier with the "one of a kind" meaning - the modifier refers to the gulf between it and the next most similar, but different, entities.
And given that, at least in Merriam-Webster, the primary definition of despise is “to strongly dislike or hate,” and I rarely if ever in day-to-day life hear the word used with the meaning of “to look down on or regard as worthless or distasteful,” it doesn’t typically present a problem for me.
James Brown would like a word.
Given the length of time that the Supreme Court has spent arguing about exactly what "clearly understandable" language in serious documents such as statutes actually means, I'm not sure that these "serious documents" are as immune from small changes in understanding of meaning as you might prefer.