Language and its abuse

[Frank&Earnest]

Ok, back to the pas de trois with Pawnhead and LGS :D.

First of all, this light hearted (Happy, Greg? :wink:) discussion (at least until now, it seems that LGS is close to spitting the dummy...) is based on my respect of your intelligence, which makes me assume that you know that a "relative absolute" is an oximoron. Your most recent posts make me think that you are not returning the courtesy.

I would submit that there is a strong indication of bias even in the reaction to my avatar... lame a pun it can be, but malicious lurking for mistakes? Geez!

I think Boban already put the matter in perspective with one word, but I have to give to you that you made a good point with the monotremes. You push it too hard to squeeze the concept in the "absolute" category, though. You say: "Using the term 'unique to Australia' means not found anywhere else". Which is true, but not necessarily the absolute concept you want to portray. If it means that an animal lives here or not, no argument. But if something that occurs elsewhere has an application unique to (only found in) Australia, the absolute applies only to the specific application.
To give an example: "The idea to include "mateship" in the Constitution is unique to Australia" (if we ever will have a Constitution...:rolleyes:). Could happen anywhere, but we say that so far it happens only here. Tomorrow it could apply to some other country and the uniqueness is lost.

As regards my sentence along the lines of "forget quoting the dictionary and say what you think" interpreted as an attempt to disregard damaging arguments, come on! Is my English so bad that it allows such an interpretation? :D

I would throw the ball back in your court suggesting that comparing pregnancy to a light switch (that would be "conception", wouldn't it?:oo:)
and funny mathematics seem just a way to avoid a straight answer... :wink:

I am still having fun, are you?

(BTW, I am not wearing a tutu, at least one of you should, to maintain tradition...:U)

[pawnhead]

Ok, back to the pas de trois with Pawnhead and LGS :D.

First of all, this light hearted (Happy, Greg? :wink:) discussion (at least until now, it seems that LGS is close to spitting the dummy...) is based on my respect of your intelligence, which makes me assume that you know that a "relative absolute" is an oximoron. Your most recent posts make me think that you are not returning the courtesy.

I would submit that there is a strong indication of bias even in the reaction to my avatar... lame a pun it can be, but malicious lurking for mistakes? Geez!Agreed.
He does seem to be taking it a bit too seriously.
"Play the ball and not the man".


But if something that occurs elsewhere has an application unique to (only found in) Australia, the absolute applies only to the specific application.Exactly. The 'unique' only applies to the application, and not the 'something'.
Kangaroos are in zoos all over the world, but the application of having them hopping around in the wild is unique to Australia. And that's an absolute with no relative degrees. If you said their were relatively less kangaroos hoping around elsewhere, then it destroys 'unique', and it would be ridiculous to say that there are relatively no kangaroos hoping around elsewhere. It's an absolute and 'relatively' is superfluous. It's unique, and by definition it can't be related to anything else because there's nothing else that compares to it's specific uniqueness. There are no kangaroos hopping around in the wild elsewhere unless they've escaped from a zoo, in which case the application is no longer unique, and we'd have to fall back on being unique as their country of origin. They can't take that away from us. :)

BTW. I believe that Australia is almost unique in being the only country with wild camels, and we export them to middle eastern states, but don't quote me on that.

To give an example: "The idea to include "mateship" in the Constitution is unique to Australia" (if we ever will have a Constitution...:rolleyes:). Could happen anywhere, but we say that so far it happens only here. Tomorrow it could apply to some other country and the uniqueness is lost.Unique doesn't imply never ending. When it ceases, the switch is turned off, and there's no degrees to it. It doesn't get relatively less unique until it loses it's status. But it could eternally be the 'first' (another absolute).
As regards my sentence along the lines of "forget quoting the dictionary and say what you think" interpreted as an attempt to disregard damaging arguments, come on! Is my English so bad that it allows such an interpretation? :DYeh, I didn't interpret it that way, and in your defense, some dictionaries agree with you. Apart from the dictionary quote from LGS that I previously referred to, there's also the entry that Groggy provided:
3. remarkable, rare or unusual: *A well-planned bush picnic can be a unique experience for a city child.Rare implies that it's not unique and can be relative, but I'd disagree with their analogy as well. A particular child's first picnic is absolutely unique and not 'rare', up until they have another picnic, when it ceases to be unique, apart from any differences to their first experience which make it so. But only to the extent of the differences in application.

Usage: Some writers insist that unique cannot mean 'remarkable' and that phrases like very unique are therefore nonsense.I'd put myself in that class, and 'very unique' would be a bastardization of the word.
But then, back in my day, 'gay' used to mean happy, and we had an ample number of expressions for the other definition.
There is nevertheless ample evidence of its use in this way.So we can agree to disagree.
I would throw the ball back in your court suggesting that comparing pregnancy to a light switch (that would be "conception", wouldn't it?:oo:)
and funny mathematics seem just a way to avoid a straight answer... :wink:They're both absolutes, and there's nothing funny about my mathematics :wink:
I am still having fun, do you?It's very entertaining, but you know what they say about small things amusing small minds :doh:
(BTW, I am not wearing a tutu, at least one of you should, to maintain tradition...:U)Actually, I'm wearing a 'one one' in the name of economy, because it's already been proven that 2 = 1 anyway.
Here's the proof if you don't believe me:

Let a and b be equal non-zero quantities:

a = b

Multiply both sides by a:

a^2 = ab

Subtract b^2 from both sides:

a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2

Factor both sides:

(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)

Divide both sides by (a - b):

a + b = b

Substitute, observing that a = b:

b + b = b

Combine like terms on the

2b = b

Divide both sides by b:

2 = 1

Q.E.D.

[LGS]

But is it insultin' a sultan to say his unique eunuch is a relative?
Absolutely!

[Gingermick]

of course if a = b then a-b equals zero and your proof falls down

[Frank&Earnest]

Well, if that makes him happy to wear a tutu, that's fine with me...:U

I'm more concerned with another little bit of speciousness, though.

When all is said and done, we agree on almost everything. I never said that I am happy with unique used as a synonym for rare, for example, even if it seems that I have been interpreted as implying so. Tolerance does not imply agreement.

The last bit in contention is this: if we agree about the instances where "the 'unique' only applies to the application, and not the 'something'."
it would follow, IMHO, that in these instances expressing the concept with "relatively unique" might be bad English but is not an oximoron.

There is no point in continuing with kangaroos, I already conceded that the specific meaning of "unique to" as "only living in" makes an alternative expression so awkward that using it to defend my point is impractical. And my point was not that unique must be never ending. Again, do I appear that stupid? :o

But if I say: "So far, the idea of mateship being a defining ethnic value is a concept unique relatively to Australia" I stand by my original point that here "relatively" is redundant and bad English but it is not an oximoron like "very unique", be this last expression now acceptable or not.

Maybe my citizenship should be revoked...:D

[Wongo]

it's already been proven that 2 = 1 anyway.



of course if a = b then a-b equals zero and your proof falls down

It's been disproven now. :D

[Frank&Earnest]

But is it insultin' a sultan to say his unique eunuch is a relative?
Absolutely!

Maybe not, if that's what the sultan does to his poor relatives...

[pawnhead]

But if I say: "So far, the idea of mateship being a defining ethnic value is a concept unique relatively to Australia" I stand by my original point that here "relatively" is redundant and bad English but it is not an oximoron like "very unique", be this last expression now acceptable or not.I'd agree with that. 'Superfluous' as I described it, but not an oxymoron such as "Military intelligence", "Government organization", or "Microsoft works". :q

BTW, the word oxymoron is itself an oxymoron. From Greek oxy ("sharp") and moros ("dull").

[Frank&Earnest]

Thanks for that, and for subtly correcting my spelling...:2tsup:

[JDarvall]

Bloody hell. And I thought I had problems. Your all a bunch of nutters. The lot of you.

[echnidna]

dey seem just like frustrated school marms A.T. :D

[pawnhead]

Bloody hell. And I thought I had problems. Your all a bunch of nutters. The lot of you.http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/holgerdanske/calculatedincorrectji8.jpg

[Frank&Earnest]

Where did you get my photograph? :D

[Frank&Earnest]

dey seem just like frustrated school marms A.T. :D

He who works with his head and not with his hands needs craftwork.:D

[JDarvall]

:D

Thank god someone threw up a picture ! Much easier than having to type a thousand words I think.

[LGS]

He who works with his head and not with his hands needs craftwork.:D

Ahh.. Kraftwerk..excellent band! Was it Jan Akkerman who played a most brilliant guitar?

[JDarvall]

:rolleyes: off we go again.........

[wheelinround]

<table style=" 507px; 286px;" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="scheduletitlegrey">The Adventure Of English </td></tr> <tr><td>
</td><td class="scheduletxt">This episode begins In the Augustan Age - the first half of the18th century - where admiration for Latin literary models was at its height in England. Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver's Travels, led a movement to fix and regulate the language on the model of Latin. Samuel Johnson produced the first great English dictionary; Robert Lowth and other grammarians imposed new rules on the language; and actor Thomas Sheridan took it upon himself to teach the whole country to speak properly. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Robert Burns, William Wordsworth and Jane Austen all contributed to the story of the language. (From the UK, in English) (Documentary Series) (Part 6) (Rpt) PG CC
<!--SMS Alert Code: 8538 --></td></tr></tbody></table>
http://www.dymocks.com.au/ProductDetails/ProductDetail.aspx?R=9322225058729

I have been watching this series on SBS quite interesting to see what and how Language has changed throughout time.