2 ms·

Linguistics? Linguists merely observe what happens in the wild, the way an anthropologist does. And like an anthropologist -- a good anthropologist -- they oug

Linguistics? Linguists merely observe what happens in the wild, the way an anthropologist does. And like an anthropologist -- a good anthropologist -- they ought to set aside all notions of better or worse. It's not for an anthropologist to rank putting a bone through one's nose against putting a man on the moon and to judge whether one is better than the other. In the same vein, neither is it right for a linguist to say whether "more unique," etc. is right or wrong. So, you see, regarding usage, linguists are of no help in matters of taste. I would suggest you consult a quality reference on the English language, such as "Garner's Modern American Usage." There, you would read that these casual uses of unique ought to be avoided. I'm sorry, but you won't find "Garner's" online for free, so I can't link to it. Consult your local library, while there still are some.

coldtea 11y ago
>In the same vein, neither is it right for a linguist to say whether "more unique," etc. is right or wrong. So, you see, regarding usage, linguists are of no help in matters of taste. Linguistics studies language and its use, and linguists can and do, determine things that are part of the normal course of the evolution of language (and have happened again and again) and convey specific meanings from plain errors. Linguists often come and dispell common language myths (unscientific ideas about language) like the one we're talking about (and also changes in meaning, like "literally" becoming a stronger "virtually"). It's actually "matters of taste" that are of no importance to determine whether "more unique" is wrong. Taste is taste.
- mariodiana 11y ago
  What we're arguing about here is "prescriptive" versus "descriptive." Linguistics is the second of the two. Scientific data says nothing about right or wrong. It simply says what "people" do; it doesn't tell us what to do. As to taste, or prescriptive rules of language, what we're talking about is the use of language by educated people who make a point of expressing themselves clearly and elegantly. These are not "unscientific" ideas about language but, instead, simply non-scientific. Science here has no place. You may say "taste is taste," and that's true. You're free to speak and write anyway you choose. And if something is a'ight with you, have fun with it. Your peeps should have no trouble understanding you. My original point takes place in the context of criticizing someone who is writing in a public forum about writing.

coldtea 11y ago

>In the same vein, neither is it right for a linguist to say whether "more unique," etc. is right or wrong. So, you see, regarding usage, linguists are of no help in matters of taste. Linguistics studies language and its use, and linguists can and do, determine things that are part of the normal course of the evolution of language (and have happened again and again) and convey specific meanings from plain errors. Linguists often come and dispell common language myths (unscientific ideas about language) like the one we're talking about (and also changes in meaning, like "literally" becoming a stronger "virtually"). It's actually "matters of taste" that are of no importance to determine whether "more unique" is wrong. Taste is taste.

mariodiana 11y ago
What we're arguing about here is "prescriptive" versus "descriptive." Linguistics is the second of the two. Scientific data says nothing about right or wrong. It simply says what "people" do; it doesn't tell us what to do. As to taste, or prescriptive rules of language, what we're talking about is the use of language by educated people who make a point of expressing themselves clearly and elegantly. These are not "unscientific" ideas about language but, instead, simply non-scientific. Science here has no place. You may say "taste is taste," and that's true. You're free to speak and write anyway you choose. And if something is a'ight with you, have fun with it. Your peeps should have no trouble understanding you. My original point takes place in the context of criticizing someone who is writing in a public forum about writing.