I always reckoned I was almost unique - except for my evil twin, probably

If you're "one in a million" -- that means there are two thousand people in China who are just like you!

tanstaafl.

How do you like your RAM? My son wants to buy one (with help). Do you have a 4x4? If so, how has that held up?

I would buy another RAM over a Ford or Chevy. The only truck I'd replace it with was my old '81 Chevy 4x4, but it kept blowing motors.
I will tell you that the Dodge 360 Magnum motor is great for towing, but gas milage is does not understand. I get 9.8 mpg pulling a 3500# boat. about 11 when just driving. Then again I do have a lead foot...
I have a 98 RAM 4x4 and it has held up well, no problems so far *knock on wood*

I sure do hate English's malleability.

What a singularly unique sentiment!

But what if you had something that was one of a matching pair, and there was only 2 of them. Wouldn't that be "nearly" one-of-a-kind?

No, that would be part of a unique set

pca

Then again, maybe he meant ``really'' as an expression of non-exaggeration, as opposed to a comparative.

Probably. In the past I've been accused of arguing semantics to the detriment of the issue at hand, so I'm just going to agree with whatever makes people happy. All I know is that I've been Bitted. It's like a coming-of-age ceremony in the Empeg community... I've finally been accepted... I belong.



Cheers

I used to have a Bronco. It was my first vehicle and the 302 got about 9.5 mpg, but the fuel injectors leaked. Then the Borg Warner transfer case went out while I was at about a 60 degree angle and I decided to sell it. Phoenix, you must be thinking of the Bronco II which is pretty narrow, because the Bronco is pretty wide.

In any case, my next off-roading truck will be a Kaiser-Jeep M715.

No, that would be part of a unique set <http://empeg.comms.net/images/icons/wink.gif>

Just to keep this Off-Topic post totally off-topic , which would be worth more? One genuine Mona Lisa, or two genuine Mona Lisas?

"Unique" cannot be connected to an adjective,
"A lot" is an item in an auction and has no other meaning.
"Hoi Polloi" you can't say "The Hoi Polloi" because "Hoi" is the Greek for " the" and you would be saying: "The the Polloi"

3 reasons that I've never spoken to my English tutor since the day I finished!

It can't be "really" one-of-a-kind, any more than it can be "nearly" one-of-a-kind.

I know that's the standard riposte, but I don't buy it. What does it mean to be unique? It means that, in some notional morphological space, it has a nonzero distance to its nearest neighbour. I think it's valid to say "really unique" if that distance is relatively large.

A point object cannot be "slightly" in France, but it can certainly be "nearly" in France, or, if a long way from the border, "really" in France.

I've got similarly little patience for people who insist that the word "literally" cannot be used metaphorically.

Peter

A point object cannot be "slightly" in France, but it can certainly be "nearly" in France, or, if a long way from the border, "really" in France.

I'd argue that something could be slightly in France, if it were just on the other side of the border from the thing that was nearly in France. Then again, maybe that would be barely in France, and something slightly in France would have to also be partially in another country as well, as a city overlapping a border (which happens occasionally -- Kansas City, Sault Ste. Marie, and Niagara come to mind -- although I don't know any in France).

However, this argument doesn't apply well to the notion of uniqueness, since there is no room for movement inside unique as there is in France. Unique means that there is one. If that is modified in any way, it is no longer unique. There is no wiggle room. Whereas there is a great (certainly non-zero) distance between, say, Nice and Calais or between Bordeaux and Paris.

I've got similarly little patience for people who insist that the word "literally" cannot be used metaphorically.

My problem with this is it's my experience that most people who use it in such a fashion are unaware that they're using it metaphorically because they don't understand what the word means (even though it's quite obvious).

However, this argument doesn't apply well to the notion of uniqueness, since there is no room for movement inside unique as there is in France.

No, that's the whole point. When someone describes the Hummer as "really unique", they mean that you could make it more humdrum and it would still end up unique, because it's so far from being the same as anything else to start with. Such an object is clearly more unique than another object which, while still unique, is morphologically quite close to its nearest neighbour. Denying the existence of degrees of uniqueness is robbing the language of clearly-defined and widely-used semantics in the name of an imaginary rule.

If there were two words in English, one meaning "unique" according to the Hummer definition, and the other meaning "unique" according to the more restrictive definition, which do you think would get more use? The first? Would the second in fact get so little use as to die out? (After all, it's now not a very unique word...) OK, now I suggest that both those words were spelt "unique" and the second has already died out.

literally

My problem with this is it's my experience that most people who use it in such a fashion are unaware that they're using it metaphorically because they don't understand what the word means (even though it's quite obvious).

The problem with that, is that almost all uses of the word "literal" are metaphorical; I don't remember ever seeing it used to mean "letter-by-letter". I don't think you have to be aware that "very" and "quite" both mean "totally" in order to employ their common metaphorical uses correctly.

Peter

Remember - you're unique, just like everyone else.

-Zeke

edit: ...and I don't want to get into the em vs en dash argument either.

Neither of these arguments sits well with me, either, although I understand your point in both cases. To me, ``unique'' is the only word that means ``one-of-a-kind'', without having to resort to such linguistic hacks as ``one-of-a-kind''. There are a multitude of words that could replace ``unique'' in this context, and offer more meaning. ``Extraordinary'', ``odd'', ``remarkable'', come to mind, but, without knowing what he meant, I cannot place any one of those adjectives in its place.

And that is the crux of my point. When words lose their meanings, or those meanings get diluted, how are we supposed to express ourselves precisely? A computer science rule states that one should be strict in output and liberal in input. To that extent, I knew what he meant. But if I wanted to express that something was one-of-a-kind, I'd much rather use a succinct term like ``unique'' (``singular'' has already gone by the wayside), but I cannot, because I'll have to qualify that, by ``unique'', I actually mean unique.

It is not a problem of the language changing, it's a problem that we're losing the ability to express ourselves in an accurate manner, and that loss of expressing, IMHO, is part of a domino effect. When we lose the ability to express our meanings, then those meanings themselves start to erode from our consciousnesses. Of course, you could dismiss that as metaphysical claptrap, and I would have no recourse, as that's a fundamental belief, with only slight evidence to back it up.

But, to speak explicitly to your points:

you could make it more humdrum and it would still end up unique

I do not believe that ``humdrum'' is on the same axis as unique. That, to me, is like saying that ``you could make it more purple and it would still end up soft'', which is obviously true, but not exactly relevant. If this, in fact, what he meant, then I would argue that he should have used a word that was the opposite of ``humdrum''.

both those words were spelt "unique" and the second has already died out

But that's obviously not the case, or this argument wouldn't have started.

almost all uses of the word "literal" are metaphorical ... I don't think you have to be aware [of denotations] in order to employ their common metaphorical uses correctly

No, you don't. However, when you're not aware of the metaphor, and assume that the metaphor is the definition, what happens when someone uses the word denotatively? And, conversely, what happens when the listener isn't sure what the speaker means because he isn't sure whether the speaker is even aware of the dichotomy at all?

My point, again, is that these sort of ignorance-based modifications make it harder for us to communicate, at least in the realm where we don't know the abilites and knowledge levels of the people with whom we are interacting. I feel confident in speaking with you, and having you understand what I mean based on the fact that you've proven yourself to be knowledgeable and outspoken, which at least implies confidence in your verbal abilities, but I have to dumb down my language so much to speak to the unknown individual that it becomes hard for me to express myself.

Regarding the 'unique' dilemma you two face (sorry I couldn't help myself), I can see both sides. The thesaurus lists these other words with 'unique' which make an interesting point about the shadings of the word.

sole
only one of its kind
single
exclusive
exceptional
inimitable
distinctive
matchless
irreplacable
rare

antonym: common

I would say that in regards to the Hummer H2 'distinctive' may be a better descriptive choice. After all, how can something that is mass produced really be unique? Perhaps the design can be, but the vehicle cannot.

-Zeke

Exactly. One of the great things, in my mind, about the English language is the number of words avaliable, each of which carries its own slightly different meaning. But if the definitions become muddied, then all of those words start to mean the exact same thing, simply because people are too lazy to try to make a distinction.

Oh, and, by the way, the last thing I wanted to do is make fun of CanuckInLA, which is why I was trying to speak in a more generalized manner before Peter stuck his big, fat nose in (j/k). I would like him, as well as everyone else, to think more about how they say things and the words they use, though.

So, Canuck, I'm sorry. I didn't really intend for this to become a big stink. In no way do I think you're an idiot, either on your own, or because of your word choice. Everyone does it, so it'd be stupid for me to single you out. But any change for the better I can make (even if it's thinking about it and totally disagreeing with me) is one step in the right direction.

Edit: Oops. It's CanuckInLA, not matthew_k. And it was pointed out to me by someone that this apology seems to come out of nowhere, and he was right. The last thing I want to do, as I said, is piss anyone off. So I might as well try my best to avoid that. And this was my attempt.

Edit edit: Well, I might intend to piss someone off (in general, but not in this case), but I definitely don't want to drive him away.

I don't think anyone will be driven away. You're our William Safire. It would be a far less interesting place if you weren't here. As he said: "...I've been Bitted". You've been verbed.

-Zeke

Well, I appreciate your appreciation of me, even if it is for my curmudgeonliness.

Oh, and, by the way, the last thing I wanted to do is make fun of CanuckInLA,

Oh, that's okay. You'd be really unique if you didn't.

So, Canuck, I'm sorry. I didn't really intend for this to become a big stink.

No apology necessary. I have a small interest in linguistics (hey, I subscribe to a word-of-the-day that goes into the etymology of the word), so the digression doesn't bother me. I have my own pet peeves that I have to rant about, too (such as top-posting, and HTML in email). Have to admit, I was a bit blind-sided by it, but what the heck.

BTW, there is a guy on the board with the nick Canuck. So far as I can tell, he's just lurking, though... I was going to use that nick, but thought I'd be really unique if I tacked in the InLA part.

Muahahaha. I know how to push Bitt's really unique buttons!

As he said: "...I've been Bitted". You've been verbed.

Don't blame the verbing on me -- I stole that from another thread. Can't remember which, though.

Oooh. Top posting. Don't get me started. At least we can agree on that one.

And I'll one-up you on HTML email. I used to regularly get email from a guy (a marketroid at an old employer) that consisted solely of Word docs. With no special markup or anything -- just text. And they'd be multiple megabyte emails. For two sentences. I still shudder thinking about it. (I got in a little bit of trouble for implementing a email size limit that tended to block his two paragraph emails.)

If that bother Bitt it's only because he's re-nouned. Ba-dumph! Thank you thank you....performing nightly!

-Zeke

Remember - you're unique, just like everyone else.

-Zeke



If you're 'one in a million', there are a thousand people just like you in China.

Oooh. Top posting. Don't get me started. At least we can agree on that one.

I think we all can...

And I'll one-up you on HTML email.

I'm currently trying to buy a house in Cambridge (long story) and was very pleased when I found a conveyancer with an email address. Unfortunately (a) he sends HTML email, and (b) he replies to incoming email by sending physical letters in the post. This is, to my mind, somehow missing the point...

Peter

When words lose their meanings, or those meanings get diluted, how are we supposed to express ourselves precisely? [...] if I wanted to express that something was one-of-a-kind, I'd much rather use a succinct term like ``unique'' (``singular'' has already gone by the wayside), but I cannot, because I'll have to qualify that, by ``unique'', I actually mean unique.

But I don't think the Hummer definition of "unique" loses you any of the original meaning. The semantics of "this thing is unique" don't change. It's just that with the Hummer definition we can also express "this thing is really unique". I wouldn't be arguing for the Hummer definition if I think it invalidated any semantics of the restrictive definition; but I think it preserves those semantics when "unique" is used unqualified. Surely changes that strictly increase the semantic range of the language are a Good Thing?

Peter

My accountant confirms his e-mails by letter, which is on the same level of silliness!

My accountant confirms his e-mails by letter, which is on the same level of silliness!

But at least that way you get the first copy at email speeds...

Peter

But at least that way you get the first copy at email
speeds...

You need to save the paper to save the planet

You need to save the paper to save the planet

Save the planet? The planet ain't going anywhere...

All I can say is that I disagree, largely because there are words out there that work just as well as unique with your definition that don't carry the possibility of causing a misunderstanding. For example, if I said ``That piece of Tiffany glass is unique,'' do I mean that it's distinctive (which it certainly would be), or do I mean that it's the only one ever made (which it could be)? (Obviously, I would mean the latter.) That could be the difference between hundreds of dollars and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So, no, changes that increase the semantic range are not always a Good Thing, as they often dilute the original meanings. If they were able to do the former without the latter, then that would definitely be a Good Thing.

Regardless, as long as you've thought about it, and determined, for logical reasons, that I'm an idiot for relying on this strict interpretation, which you obviously have, then I'm happy. Usually when I bring something like this up with the average citizen (usually because I need clarification on something they've said), I get the response ``You know what I mean'' or ``Whatever''. Which is what really bothers me. The fact that they simply don't care -- the content ignorance.

re-nouned.

Ach! That's great!

I do have one concern about Mr. Faulk's notoriety. I'm afraid that it could lead the more passive-aggressive members of the BBS to engage, perhaps unconsciously, in a certain amount of "Bitt baiting". Hopefully this BBS is above that kind of behavior.