Printable View
Absolutely. My point is that it's not a finite term though: one man's (or time's) unique is another man's (or time's) run of the mill. The term carries with it some assumptions regarding certainty. The only way to prove that a thing is unique is by searching for something else to equal it - once you have found that, the thing is no longer unique. Hence the paradox.
I think my brain just did a somersault inside my head. Sorry about that...
It doesn’t necessarily imply quality, or a high rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Q.E.D.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
j/k :wink:
I use 'quality' in the sense of the thing by which it is judged to be unique - not to imply that it is better. That could be a negative thing. Just goes to show how difficult it can be to use the English language to discuss abstract concepts in a precise way.Quote:
It doesn’t necessarily imply quality, or a high rating.
This is an interesting thread and shows just what a can of worms language can be, something of which I, being a jackal of the media myself, am acutely and often frustratingly aware.Quote:
Originally Posted by LGS
Language can say an awful lot by what it implies.
If we ascribe a characteristic, like innocence, to one group it implies some other group must lack that quality.
A classic is "All right-thinking people know that blah blah..". If you disagree you must be wrong-thinking.
If we express concern that some group has been adversely affected by some event then another group similarly hurt must, by implication, be less worthy of our compassion.
The term "innocent" is one I find particularly infuriating, because it so often implies, very subtly, that there is some other group that is somehow guilty - although of what we are never told - and therefore expendable.
We often hear that some people "including innocent civilians" or "including women and children" have been killed by a stray bomb.
However these words imply that the deaths of civilian men or military personnel are less tragic, or even not tragic at all. (As an aside, we would no longer accept the phrase "15 people were killed, including 2 white people", although we still hear phrases like "two Australians were among the 29 dead".)
We heard such terms a lot during the invasion of Iraq and they brought with them this value judgment, virtually uncontested by anyone, left or right.
Young Iraqi soldiers were guilty of nothing other than defending their country. They were often conscripted on pain of amputation of hands, feet or (after amputee veterans of the Iran/Iraq conflict tired of being mistaken for deserters) ears - without anaesthetic.
Other punishments included a cross tattooed on the forehead and social ostracism of their families, etc.
They were poorly trained and armed, badly led and faced the mightiest adversary imaginable. They had little choice and little chance.
Yet the more we lamented the accidental deaths of their mothers, sisters and fathers the less concern we had to feel for the slaughter of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of these "guilty" young blokes.
Anyway, without getting into a debate (please!) about the rights and wrongs of the various wars involving Iraq (or anyone other country), this is a lovely illustration of the insidious way language can be used to subvert the moral instincts of otherwise right-thinking people.
Sometimes I think I like routers more than I like people, although both are quite capable of inflicting horrific collateral damage on innocent civilians.
It's a fair point. I think the word innocent is used in that context to indicate that people killed were not part of the action. So a soldier fighting for his country, whether by choice or under duress, is considered part of the action and therefore an expected casualty, whereas a mother and child sitting in the kitchen of their house are less so. If you look at it the way you're suggesting, then yes it does imply that the soldier who was killed is less deserving of our sympathy, even though we don't necessarily know the circumstances that brought him there in the first place. Perhaps they should just stick to civilian casualties and leave it at that, but the lines are a bit blurred in this case and it's not always obvious who are the 'innocent' civilians and who are the combatants.
Oh boy, I love predictability!:D I stopped short of illustrating my point on relativity with the pregnancy cliche' because I thought that somebody was bound to pull it out and I would have more fun debating it. And I got rewarded with an extra treat, the "best" one. :U
The story goes that in the main street of a country town there were three tailors. One day, one tailor put out a sign: "The best tailor in town". Another immediately got one up by writing on his shop "The best tailor in the State". The third one looked at both, thought deeply, and wrote on his shop: "The best tailor in this street". :p
Back to pregnancy. Yes, one can't be half pregnant, ha ha ha. But when "pregnancy" means the 9 months condition, it is quite acceptable to say "heavily pregnant" to indicate that the pregnancy is in its more advanced stages without knowing that it is e.g. "8 months pregnant".
As regards "unique", the dictionary supposed to disprove my point actually supports it: when one says unique to, it means unique 'relatively' to, therefore one can say "relatively unique". Rather clumsy expression, as I prehemptively admitted, but the concept is valid.
But, alas, even the wicked "wayward" dictionary is not good enough for you linguistic ultraconservatives, because it acceps "unique" as "extremely rare". How could it! Burn all the books written after 1950! Stop evolution!
Which brings me to another definition :wink:. The distinction between neurosis and psychosis has recently been found too blurry and therefore has been abandoned by the shrinks. Before, though, it was said that the difference is that a psychotic says "2+2=5", a neurotic says "2+2=4, but it UPSETS me!". Your attitude towards the evolution of the language looks rather neurotic to me...:U
As I pointed out earlier in this discussion, language is dynamic. We may not like what happens but unless language does evolve it becomes dead. English has always been in a state of flux, It is why it is so expressive of shades of meaning, or should be.
The word "pregnant" used to describe the state of a woman prior to motherhood was a misuse of language brought about by Victorian modesty.
"Sophistication" originally meant adulterated, artificial coming from the Greek Sophists who were fallacious, quibbling reasoners.
I know I hate the torture Americanisms inflict on the language but I have to accept the "upside" of what is happening.
Try getting through to a teenager the difference between lend and borrow.
What I find hardest to bear is the lazy minded "catch phrase" Everything at the moment is an "icon". I suppose it is symbolic of our time. Q.E.D.
Jerry
To be more accurate, Jerry, it would have to be "specious", not "fallacious" in that sentence. :) It is another example of a derived meaning veering away from its origins.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryc
Frank and Ernest,
I'm not sure that its valid to just decide that the dictionary actually meant to say "relatively to". It doesn't say that. I say again also, please note that the word unique is used by itself even in the context of "rare", there are no further adjectives used. Also, I'm yet to see a "heavily almost on light switch".
Lots of sophistication round here!:U
Pusser
surely something that is unique stands alone,
if some example of somthing comes up that is different in anyway from the first example then it is unique (if there is only one) it is not more unique than the first example because it's very difference makes it unique.
guys you are doing my head in,
a relatively grammatically horrible expression but apt.
astrid:)
:2tsup::2tsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by astrid
Stuff like this is what confuses me allllll the time:D. Why are two words needed to describe essentially the same action.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryc
I know your supposed to use lend like this.....
Will you lend me 2 grand? I'll pay you back next year.
and I know your supposed to use borrow like this.....
He borrowed 2 grand from me ? I think the pricks trying to rip me off! ....
But why not just have one word.....forget 'lend'......and just keep 'borrow' and say instead......
will you let me borrow 2 grand ?
Apart from 'keep it simple stupid' and all that........it would help maintain harmony amongst the academics, and keep the wordsmiths from pulling out their hair over such petty things.
This is a thorny issue, guys. I think we need to get right on top of it before we do any more woodwork.
If something is unique then we can surely expect it to be not identical to some other thing.
All right-thinking people would agree with that.
But does that mean it must be different in all respects?
For example, the hole in the adjustment mechanism in the fence on the Archer router I bought from Carba-tec in Sydney was not drilled all the way through so I couldn't fix the locking bolt it in position. (They were happy to replace it - thanks Carba-tec.)
Does this mean the router was unique, or just slightly different?
Given the generous manufacturing tolerances in budget routers, one could argue that they were all unique.
How then can we say that one of these routers - such as mine - is unique in a more significant respect than other routers?
Can we indeed say it is "more unique"?
Would a router with a half-drilled locking bolt hole be more or less unique than one with, say, a fence that was slightly out of square?
And if so, how can we then differentiate my old D-handle Makita, with all its dings and scratches, from all the other routers, which are already unique, some in more significant respects than others? OK, except those Festools which might actually be all identical down to the molecular level, which they'd want to be given the price.
Is the old Makita very unique? Or just more unique?
And does it even work?
Maybe I should plug it in and switch it on.
It's a plump little thing.
Maybe it's a bit pregnant.
Anyone know where I could get an instruction book or manual for it?
Gee I'm glad we got that sorted out.
You have to confront these issues otherwise they'll just fester.
It's application, like most words, must be experiential.
From the Macquarie:
unique
uniquely, adverb. uniqueness, noun.
/yooh'neek/.
adjective
1. of which there is only one; sole.
2. having no like or equal; standing alone in comparison with others; unequalled.
3. remarkable, rare or unusual: *A well-planned bush picnic can be a unique experience for a city child. - BETTY PRESTON, 1968.
[French, from Latin unicus; replacing earlier unic, from Latin unicus]
Usage: Some writers insist that unique cannot mean 'remarkable' and that phrases like very unique are therefore nonsense. There is nevertheless ample evidence of its use in this way.