8 ms·

Uniqueness is absolute, so the support email is either unique or not. There are no degrees of uniqueness for something to be more unique than another thing. Sor

by rizumu 12y ago

Uniqueness is absolute, so the support email is either unique or not. There are no degrees of uniqueness for something to be more unique than another thing. Sorry, but this grammar mistake is a big pet peeve.

raldi 12y ago
That's only sorta true.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
dang 12y ago
Now if we ever issue this award again we will be obliged to repeat the mistake forever. :) Had I thought about it I probably would have written "most unusual". Still, I'm not sure the pedant's case holds up on this one. Two things may differ from everything else to varying degrees; both are unique, but the one that stands apart more is arguably more so. Even among the unique support requests of 2014, Rob's email stood apart the most by a long shot.
- hueving 12y ago
  Take the following definition of unique - being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else. So if something is 'more unique' than something else, it doesn't really fit the first part of the definition because they are both only one of a kind, but it fits with the second in that it is more unlike anything else than the other thing.
mikeash 12y ago
My dictionary lists two definitions for "unique." One is "being the only one of its kind" and is thus a binary property as you say, but the other is merely "particularly remarkable, special, or unusual," which is perfectly amenable to modifiers like this.
- mkempe 12y ago
  "unique" comes directly from the Latin "unus", one. The modernist, American wishy-washy uses of the word to mean "unusual" are a sad travesty of thinking. One should simply use the word "unusual" if that's what one means to say.
  - danellis 12y ago
    If you think words gaining new and changing meanings is "a sad travesty", then I think you are a nice person -- and I don't mean in the modern sense of the word.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      The problem isn't gaining meanings; it's losing them. If unique becomes a synonym for unusual, then we no longer have a word that means unique. I think these battles are worth fighting. As does Weird Al: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w
      - danellis 12y ago
        I don't know why Weird Al thought that was necessary, but this supposed less vs fewer "rule" does not describe actual modern or historical usage. Self-appointed grammarians can choose to stick to whatever usage they like, but going around with stickers and marker pens only makes them look like pedantic bores.
        wpietri 12y ago
        Huh. So now you're against new meanings?
        danellis 12y ago
        No. I'm saying it's fine for people to stick to the usage they prefer, which may organically bring about a change, but there's no need to be critical of other people for using what is a commonly understood usage.
warbiscuit 12y ago
I'd argue that definition is incorrect. To be unique, all something needs is to have a collection of properties which (taken together) are possessed by no other instance within some larger population. Even then, it's still quite possible to have multiple unique objects within a set. This quality of "uniqueness" can then be ranked, based on how many of those unique properties (or subsets of them) are sufficient to still make the item unique. E.g. blue sphere among blue cubes is less unique than a red sphere among blue cubes. So yes, "more unique" is perfectly reasonable IMHO :P
chrismorgan 12y ago
I would urge you to, like I realised I had to a few years ago, get over it. Language is not defined by a dictionary or by history; roots and origins are truly meaningless. A word is defined by its usage; it’s one of the delightful things in the world for which it can be said that if enough people say something is true, it becomes true. Uniqueness may once have been a boolean property (I cannot say for certain one way or another), but at present it is not.
- nhayden 12y ago
  Should we accept incorrect usage of language that is more confusing than the correct usage? For instance, using "begs the question" instead of "raises the question". It causes a lot of confusion because people cannot even agree what the misusage of "begs the question" means and it is never a better choice of words than "raises the question" if that is what someone means.
  - jamon51 12y ago
    Rarely are we in a position to "accept" or "deny" changes in language. They just happen, with or without our consent. All we can do is try to keep up and make some sense of the current state.
  - Squarel 12y ago
    I am with Stephen Fry on this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY Language evolves over time, and I am no more confused by someone (mis)using "begs the question" than I am by someone using the modern definition of decimate.
  - gpvos 12y ago
    The point is that "correct usage" is not defined by logicians or etymologists or any kind of authority, but by society as a whole, and therefore has no one exact definition. Look up "literally" in any recent dictionary for proof.
    - teach 12y ago
coherentpony 12y ago
You must be a blast at parties.

by rizumu 12y ago

raldi 12y ago

That's only sorta true.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

dang 12y ago

Now if we ever issue this award again we will be obliged to repeat the mistake forever. :) Had I thought about it I probably would have written "most unusual". Still, I'm not sure the pedant's case holds up on this one. Two things may differ from everything else to varying degrees; both are unique, but the one that stands apart more is arguably more so. Even among the unique support requests of 2014, Rob's email stood apart the most by a long shot.

hueving 12y ago
Take the following definition of unique - being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else. So if something is 'more unique' than something else, it doesn't really fit the first part of the definition because they are both only one of a kind, but it fits with the second in that it is more unlike anything else than the other thing.

mikeash 12y ago

My dictionary lists two definitions for "unique." One is "being the only one of its kind" and is thus a binary property as you say, but the other is merely "particularly remarkable, special, or unusual," which is perfectly amenable to modifiers like this.

mkempe 12y ago
"unique" comes directly from the Latin "unus", one. The modernist, American wishy-washy uses of the word to mean "unusual" are a sad travesty of thinking. One should simply use the word "unusual" if that's what one means to say.
- danellis 12y ago
  If you think words gaining new and changing meanings is "a sad travesty", then I think you are a nice person -- and I don't mean in the modern sense of the word.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    The problem isn't gaining meanings; it's losing them. If unique becomes a synonym for unusual, then we no longer have a word that means unique. I think these battles are worth fighting. As does Weird Al: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w
    - danellis 12y ago
      I don't know why Weird Al thought that was necessary, but this supposed less vs fewer "rule" does not describe actual modern or historical usage. Self-appointed grammarians can choose to stick to whatever usage they like, but going around with stickers and marker pens only makes them look like pedantic bores.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        Huh. So now you're against new meanings?
        danellis 12y ago
        No. I'm saying it's fine for people to stick to the usage they prefer, which may organically bring about a change, but there's no need to be critical of other people for using what is a commonly understood usage.

warbiscuit 12y ago

I'd argue that definition is incorrect. To be unique, all something needs is to have a collection of properties which (taken together) are possessed by no other instance within some larger population. Even then, it's still quite possible to have multiple unique objects within a set. This quality of "uniqueness" can then be ranked, based on how many of those unique properties (or subsets of them) are sufficient to still make the item unique. E.g. blue sphere among blue cubes is less unique than a red sphere among blue cubes. So yes, "more unique" is perfectly reasonable IMHO :P

chrismorgan 12y ago

I would urge you to, like I realised I had to a few years ago, get over it. Language is not defined by a dictionary or by history; roots and origins are truly meaningless. A word is defined by its usage; it’s one of the delightful things in the world for which it can be said that if enough people say something is true, it becomes true. Uniqueness may once have been a boolean property (I cannot say for certain one way or another), but at present it is not.

nhayden 12y ago
Should we accept incorrect usage of language that is more confusing than the correct usage? For instance, using "begs the question" instead of "raises the question". It causes a lot of confusion because people cannot even agree what the misusage of "begs the question" means and it is never a better choice of words than "raises the question" if that is what someone means.
- jamon51 12y ago
  Rarely are we in a position to "accept" or "deny" changes in language. They just happen, with or without our consent. All we can do is try to keep up and make some sense of the current state.
- Squarel 12y ago
  I am with Stephen Fry on this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY Language evolves over time, and I am no more confused by someone (mis)using "begs the question" than I am by someone using the modern definition of decimate.
- gpvos 12y ago
  The point is that "correct usage" is not defined by logicians or etymologists or any kind of authority, but by society as a whole, and therefore has no one exact definition. Look up "literally" in any recent dictionary for proof.
  - teach 12y ago

coherentpony 12y ago

You must be a blast at parties.