Language and its abuse

[LGS]

Sting wrote..
"Poets, Priests and Politicians,
have words to thank for their positions."

Well, you can add journos, speech writers, teachers and a few other professions. These we could call the wordsmiths. It seems that lately they have become somewhat lax in their use of the words they work with. I think it was LBJ who started with "looking back in retrospect" and now Kevin07 says "This is the single, largest Government initiative of its type." So these guys just quietly try to up the importance of their statements by adding a few superlatives and everyone absorbs these statements, then uses them in everyday speech.
What happens, though, when the meaning of the original word becomes lessened. We now have quite, relatively or very unique.
I actually read a message where someone was trying to stress the importance of his invention by saying, " I want to stress that in comparison to something that is relatively unique, my invention should be regarded as quite or even very unique"..Say what???
Isn't "unique" a word to define something that stands alone and has no peer? I'm sure we can all think of other examples. The lessening of the importance of language means a lessening of the coherence of society. (Big statement but I think it is so.) If the wordsmiths can't get it right, what hope is there for anyone else?:arge:

Regards,

Rob

[pawnhead]

In my quite humble and immeasurably diminutive opinion, I’ll attempt to try to achieve in a small way, some meager expression of some most deserved recognition of your clever, astute, wise, and appropriately equitable observations, with as few unnecessarily and drawn out superlatives, and as briefly and succinctly as my grasp of our noble and historic language allows me to express a brief prose that conveys an appropriate sentiment that would be tenable for a passing reader to comprehend totally whilst casting a brief, and fleeting glance at my humble and immeasurably diminutive opinion, which attempts to try to achieve in a small way, some meager expression of some most deserved recognition of your clever, astute, wise, and appropriately equitable observations, as briefly and succinctly as my grasp of our noble and historic language allowed me to express a brief prose that conveys an appropriate sentiment that would be tenable,,,,,etc, etc, ad infinitum:



I concur.

[echnidna]

sms messaginmg will probably have a bigger impact on our language in future than all the boffins ever could.

[LGS]

You're right Bob,

A 12 YO girl in NYC recently was asked to spell then text "supercalifragilisticexpialadocious". Couldn't spell it, texted in about 10 seconds! Where will it end?:C

[OLDPHART]

Its Public Service speak,obfuscation.:rolleyes:

[Gingermick]

isn't it expialadotious

[LGS]

Ginger,

Could be.

[rrich]

Nah, it's just the GWB school of public speaking.

[Stuart]

You're right Bob,

A 12 YO girl in NYC recently was asked to spell then text "supercalifragilisticexpialadocious". Couldn't spell it, texted in about 10 seconds! Where will it end?:CI fail to understand how the ability to spell or text the said term, has any bearing on the diminishing ability to understand and use the English language.

Perhaps if she could not spell America, or some other English word, it would reflect on the modern bastardisation of the English language. :rolleyes:

[Big Shed]

Nah, it's just the GWB school of public speaking.

Isn't he the president of Austria?:rolleyes:

[Gingermick]

Needless to say, we will get to the end of the job when we finish.

[Iain]

Me myself, personally speaking....................did hear this once:(

[wheelinround]

I often wonder what other nationalities think of our dribble when reading these forums.
Is/are the WWF's translated???
Can you imagine some of the expressions on their faces.

[LGS]

Stuart,
If she couldn't spell the word, what exactly did she send by text? In fact, from what little I understand of texting, most of it bears little resemblance to English anyway. Its all abbreviations, contractions and corruptions. So if she did not send the word spelled correctly, then that has a lot to do with the destruction of language.

Wheelin, its a universal pheomenon, not a local issue. In the '70's people with no qualifications in English or teaching made a good living teaching English to Japanese students. Some were illiterate in English and so, what the students were taught was, in fact drivel.

Ginger, I checked the spelling; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

Regards,

Rob

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

'Oo really cares wha's bloody well 'appenin' to th' Pommie lingo? So long as no mongrel bastard comes along and starts c'rruptin' Strine...


:innocent:

[JDarvall]

If the wordsmiths can't get it right, what hope is there for anyone else?:arge:


We don't need wordsmiths.

Why is it important they get it spot on? As long as they make sense

It seems more so to me, that the importance behind using words that few rarely use (filling paragraphs full of shyt that can often be summed up with just a couple of sentences) is to keep up appearances, or to sound clever to keep that all so important reputation strong etc.etc.

Pretention. Competition. manipulation. Puffing your chest and sounding important.

[AlexS]

Isn't "unique" a word to define something that stands alone and has no peer?

Absolutely.:2tsup:

Each word has a meaning, and it is no less important to use words correctly than it is to make a piece of furniture correctly. A badly constructed sentence is like a table that still has the machining marks on it: people may know what it is, but they'll assume that the maker was unskilled.

[JDarvall]

: people may know what it is, but they'll assume that the maker was unskilled.

so where does one go from there ?.... badly written = what ? ...... a person you don't want to associate with ?

Its sounding like snobbery to me.

[LGS]

We don't need wordsmiths.

Why is it important they get it spot on? As long as they make sense

It seems more so to me, that the importance behind using words that few rarely use (filling paragraphs full of shyt that can often be summed up with just a couple of sentences) is to keep up appearances, or to sound clever to keep that all so important reputation strong etc.etc.

Pretention. Competition. manipulation. Puffing your chest and sounding important.

Tripper, this is my point. In an effort to appear to be a "superior being" people add words that are superfluous to their language and as a result, the meaning of words is corrupted and debased. Good language gets the point across in the least number of words with the greatest amount of meaning and impact.
In the case of unique, if you can qualify it with superlatives, what word do you use to define something without peer or equal?

[Groggy]

In the case of unique, if you can qualify it with superlatives, what word do you use to define something without peer or equal?
unequalled?

Ok, ok, I'm leaving. :U

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

or peerless?

:U

[Rossluck]

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending upon where you stand, the more of an education you have the more words you have at your disposal. This means that using the right word for what you are trying to say may seem pretentious to others. But then "dumbing down" could also be seen as patronising. :?

I know that in my case I don't take much notice of the standard of language. Wild Dingo's posts, for example, are a bit wild, long and erratic, but he's a very smart fella whose posts are well worth reading (if you have the time :wink:).

I'd extend those same sentiments to you and your posts, Tripper.

[pawnhead]

In the case of unique, if you can qualify it with superlatives, what word do you use to define something without peer or equal?Saying "peerless" is basically saying the same thing as "unique" except with a more defined spectrum. In general usage it would imply that you're talking about the best/biggest/strongest etc., and it implies a performance component. With 'unequaled' it could also imply the worst/ least, but it's still a measure of volume. You're fingerprint is unique, but I wouldn't call it peerless or unequaled. It would be superfluous to use 'uniquely' as an adjective with these two terms, and vice versa.
'Unique' doesn't imply performance/volume and any superlatives should add a different dimension, e.g. 'uncompromisingly unique' if you've just developed a new Festool that's the best product that (lots of) money can buy, and you've spared no expense developing it.
You could also say 'devastatingly unique' if you were talking about a bird flue virus that's mutated to being able to infect humanity on a wide scale.

[Schtoo]

Wheelin, its a universal pheomenon, not a local issue. In the '70's people with no qualifications in English or teaching made a good living teaching English to Japanese students. Some were illiterate in English and so, what the students were taught was, in fact drivel.

Regards,

Rob



That's me.

I don't have any recognised teaching qualifications nor any bit of paper that says I have any academic knowledge of the English language.

And I teach English to Japanese people every day.


So what's your point here?


Schtoo.

(Who makes a hobby of picking the faults in 99% of the English language text books written by people with acknowledged qualifications in both English and teaching.

But since I don't have a bit of paper, what the #$!%^& do I know... :rolleyes: )

[LGS]

Shtoo,
I'm sorry. I missed out an important part of the anecdote. A number of these people spoke English as a second language themselves and were not very good at it. I believe some standards were introduced as a result of this. I realised as soon as I'd posted that I was implying that one must have qualifications to perform a function. This is obviously not always correct.

Regards,

Rob

[MurrayD99]

The newsreaders (or those who script them) are as much to blame as anyone. I'm forever hearing them report an historical win.... at a week of (identical) presentations recently I went mad hearing one presenter reiterating again why something was important. It grates. They's just thick. They's contaminating the language. I'm gone....

[Pusser]

It does matter when words mutate. Not so much when they have completed but it can cause confusion during the period - especially if you know the first meaning eg "approximatly" used to mean as close as you could measure ie approximately 3.00 pm on a watch would mean 1/2 a second either side. Now the common meaning is more like "roughly" or "about". Decimate is also like that It means "reduce by a tenth" but has come to mean "reduce to about a tenth" or something catastrophic.

Pusser

[mic-d]

The newsreaders (or those who script them) are as much to blame as anyone. I'm forever hearing them report an historical win.... at a week of (identical) presentations recently I went mad hearing one presenter reiterating again why something was important. It grates. They's just thick. They's contaminating the language. I'm gone....

You're just grumpy he was talking about RSA's win in the rugby world cup:p:D

CHeers
Michael

[mic-d]

I'm sick of hearing about :
maximums and minimums on the weather, police who fail to locate a person - it's find damnit. To locate is to place, as in locate a dowel in a hole or locate a nuclear power station in Canberra.
things that are in close proximity, it's just proximity
and fewer and fewer journo's are getting it right, not less and less, grrr.

Cheers
Michael

[wheelinround]

I am sure in another guise I have read much of this thread before.

Solicitors/barristers/judges used to be the worst for wasting words and they were made to dumbdown for a better term if you like.

More so it was due to the fact that you pay for his (sorry their) services and the more words they can squeeze in the more they get paid as they charge by the minute.

Similar to jeno's and authors of some books many being student required reading or text books lines of explanation turned into incomprehensible tounge twisters.

[munruben]

I just like to keep it simple. :)

[AlexS]

..fewer and fewer journo's are getting it right, not less and less, grrr.

Cheers
Michael
My pet peeve.:(

[pawnhead]

It does matter when words mutate. Not so much when they have completed but it can cause confusion during the period - especially if you know the first meaning eg "approximatly" used to mean as close as you could measure ie approximately 3.00 pm on a watch would mean 1/2 a second either side. Now the common meaning is more like "roughly" or "about".I don't have a problem with that. I'd say that's more defined by the number of decimal places that you give, rounded to the nearest full digit. Approximately 3 pm could be within half an hour if you're reading a sundial on a foggy day, or guessing when something happened. If you wrote 'approximately 3.00 pm' it's a bit ambiguous since it's on the hour, but it should imply that it's within half a minute either side. Pi is exactly 3.14159 correct to five decimal places, but computers can rattle of billions of decimal places that are still only an approximation within the nearest half decimal place.
Now I'm really being anal. :(
Decimate is also like that It means "reduce by a tenth" but has come to mean "reduce to about a tenth" or something catastrophic. Interesting.

[Groggy]

There are times when you need words to have a single meaning, otherwise death will result. In aviation, the last thing you want is an air traffic controller that responds "cool" (or even "roger") to a request to land. Responses need to be precise. In medicine, I do not want someone making holes in me unless he can explain clearly what he is going to do, without ambiguity. Likewise, I expect him to have been taught by someone who also was very precise in the meanings of the words and terms used. We don't need to be precise all the time, but there ARE times when precision is necessary. It bothers me that children sometimes cannot grasp a very specific meaning of a word and, worse, think it is ok to butcher and diminish the clarity of a word because they do not have the vocabulary to use the correct one. We don't need to use the skills every day, in every conversation, although for those who use precise terms frequently it becomes a habit that is difficult to break. For some, it may be a habit that is dangerous to break. Some may wish to simply be pedantic, others pedagogical, but not all are pedants. :wink:

[MurrayD99]

You're just grumpy he was talking about RSA's win in the rugby world cup:p:D

CHeers
Michael
:wink:

[silentC]

I expect him to have been taught by someone who also was very precise in the meanings of the words and terms used.This is what makes me nervous when I go to a medical centre or hospital emergency room and see a doctor who has poor English. We took our daughter to Bankstown once - she was sitting in the bath and suddenly came over with the red rash and her face started to swell up! Panic stations. Raced her off, got to see someone pretty quick, but this girl was having trouble understanding us (don't know if she thought our daughter was related to Bert Newton or what). After a few minutes of this crap, I saw another doctor, grabbed him and told him what was happening - two minutes later she was getting an adrenalin injection. Sorry, but in those situations, understanding and being understood are very important.

[boban]

Solicitors/barristers/judges used to be the worst for wasting words and they were made to dumbdown for a better term if you like.

More so it was due to the fact that you pay for his (sorry their) services and the more words they can squeeze in the more they get paid as they charge by the minute.



Coming from a person who no doubt has the experience to back up those accusations :rolleyes:

Maybe it depends on the colour of the client. You know, the lawyer can charge more with the yellow client, so he/she uses more words than they would with say for example the red client because the red clients are not so flush with funds. But it all comes from the same factory, sorry, firm. You have to believe me because my daughter used to work as a secretary in one of these types of firms :wink:

As to any language, the sole purpose is communication (as put by Tripper). The evolution of languages or the means of communication has no effect IMHO on the standard of the society within which we live.

I would have thought that morality, or lack thereof, would be a more relevant consideration in respect to the present thread.

For mine, the premise(s) set out does not lead to the conclusion drawn by LGS.

[AlexS]

Boban may correct me, but I believe that the verbosity that lawyers used to be guilty of (possibly not so bad now - I can understand my latest will) came about because of the need to avoid ambiguity the GregoryQ mentioned, and to avoid any challenge to their meaning. They used a formula of words that had a specific meaning that was accepted by lawyers & judges. What a pity no one else could understand it.

[silentC]

I can attest to that. I had an on-line argument with an ex-barrister once about my use of the word 'conspiracy'. He was complaining about something on a site I supported, suggesting that information had been intentionally suppressed, because all of the information pertaining to a certain individual was missing from the site. In fact the information was missing because the spelling of the person's name was causing an error in a parsing routine - it had an apostrophe. So I asked him had it ever occurred to him that it might be a system error, and not some conspiracy. Well didn't he bang on and on for pages about the legal definition of conspiracy. He was most upset that I'd used it in a sense that did not conform to his brainwashing :)

[wheelinround]

Coming from a person who no doubt has the experience to back up those accusations :rolleyes:

Maybe it depends on the colour of the client. You know, the lawyer can charge more with the yellow client, so he/she uses more words than they would with say for example the red client because the red clients are not so flush with funds. But it all comes from the same factory, sorry, firm. You have to believe me because my daughter used to work as a secretary in one of these types of firms :wink:

As to any language, the sole purpose is communication (as put by Tripper). The evolution of languages or the means of communication has no effect IMHO on the standard of the society within which we live.

I would have thought that morality, or lack thereof, would be a more relevant consideration in respect to the present thread.

For mine, the premise(s) set out does not lead to the conclusion drawn by LGS.

Have a mate (was best man at my wedding 31 yrs ago) who's a solicitor, also having been through a compensation claim where I had to meet the barrister who stated such I guess that would mean yes they do charge as they feel fit.

See easy when you know how isn't it.

[silentC]

Objection, your honour, hearsay!

[Gingermick]

Americanisation of our language irks me a bit. Your Honour, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ours Your Worships.
And the word narcotic. Seems that the meaing has changed to illegal drug from sleep inducing agent. As in Reading Hansard has a narcotic effect.:cool:

[silentC]

Don't know, never been to court :)

They call circuit judges in the UK "your honour", I know that much. Rumpole fan here :)

[silentC]

Found this in Wikipedia: Magistrates are still addressed as "Your Worship" in Australia, South Africa and Canada, mainly by solicitors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitors), but this practice in other Commonwealth countries is nearly obsolete.

[Gingermick]

:-

[boban]

Americanisation of our language irks me a bit. Your Honour, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ours Your Worships.


Your Worship was only used to address Magistrates in Local Courts. All other judges were referred to as Your Honour. This changed a couple of years ago. Now everyone is "Your Honour".

Plain English is now a learning requirement for new lawyers. You are right Alex, most of the long worded crap is to avoid confusion or more to the point "alleged confusion" when the crap hits the fan.

Wheelin, you make me laugh. You don't honestly expect me to believe that those two individuals told you that the long winded letters are only for the better paying clients do you? Come on mate, stick to what you know.

[jerryc]

While I try to take a pride in correct spelling I am more than aware that spelling didn't trouble Shakespeare unduly, and has some not so obvious traps. For example "program" "programme." The latter was a nineteenth century genteel abomination like "shoppe" that we just got stuck with or to be grammatically correct , with which we got lumbered. I just love hearing our stalwart policemen using "Police Speak". What I find a real problem is the convolutions that Americanese can inflict. They "burglarise" the language.
Language is dynamic and words do change in meaning, it's something we have to bear. Unfortunately.

Let us be like the Japanese who treat their language with great respect and echo the sentiments of this tee shirt. The words may not be absolutely correct but we can at least see the intent. SWMBO argues this last bit is totally off the subject.

Jerry

[jerryc]

I think I've got it.

jerry

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

As to any language, the sole purpose is communication (as put by Tripper). The evolution of languages or the means of communication has no effect IMHO on the standard of the society within which we live.

I think that part of Tripper's point was that nowadays that's not the sole purpose. Politikspeak, for example, has evolved to give the impression of conveying great import while actually providing no content at all. That's not communication, it's deliberate miscommunication. IMHO 'tis just a more subtle form of lying with less chance of being "caught" before it's too late and doesn't matter.

And sadly, this trend is becoming more popular in everyday use - it's not just PR depts and upper management, I get the same meaningless gobbledygook from service depts and the "you're doing it wrong" idiot next door.

If you think this trend doesn't affect our society, well.. :shrug:

[astrid]

Its the way we put them together
astrid

[pawnhead]

And also the way we punctuate:

An English professor wrote the words, “Woman without her man is nothing” on the blackboard and directed his students to punctuate it correctly.

The men wrote: “Woman, without her man, is nothing.”

The women wrote: “Woman: Without her, man is nothing.”

[astrid]

Sorry, for some reason its not working and i probably cant spell it either.
astrid:U

[boban]

I think that part of Tripper's point was that nowadays that's not the sole purpose. Politikspeak, for example, has evolved to give the impression of conveying great import while actually providing no content at all. That's not communication, it's deliberate miscommunication. IMHO 'tis just a more subtle form of lying with less chance of being "caught" before it's too late and doesn't matter.

And sadly, this trend is becoming more popular in everyday use - it's not just PR depts and upper management, I get the same meaningless gobbledygook from service depts and the "you're doing it wrong" idiot next door.

If you think this trend doesn't affect our society, well.. :shrug:

I didn't read Tripper's post that way. My take on his post was that some people with large vocabularies use it in order to sound more "snobbish", when simpler words would do the trick.

As to your point, I don't remember anything in this thread (and I'm not reading it again) about the political non answers or vague speak you refer to. However, I agree with the thrust of your post.

[astrid]

while we're on the subject.
I cant work out what IMHO means

astrid:U

[astrid]

for all the high fallutin words
I was reading Marcell Pagnol's "my father's castle"
to my 14yo daughter last night.
short sentences, beautifull imagery, fantastic humour
she was crying with laughter.
but she dosent understand Austin or a lot of other english lit

Astrid :U

[DJ’s Timber]

while we're on the subject.
I cant work out what IMHO means

astrid:U

In My Humble Opinion

[astrid]

thanks
astrid:)

[Pusser]

But it probably doesn't mean what it says - sometimes it will and in others it will probably mean "In my opinion and you can lump it". Context is important.

Pusser

[Schtoo]

Don't be sorry LGS, just get it right next time you, uh, err. Whatever. :D


I wasn't too worried or upset. No real need to be.

The standards you refer to are pretty much non-existent in my line of work. You can be any clown with any level of the English manglage and still get away with it.

For example, there are a couple people around here that probably shouldn't be teaching English, but they are and making money at it. A guy from Finland and another from somewhere in Africa come to mind. Nobody can work out how the Finnish guy got a job (and to be honest, I have never met him. He may be very good) and the African guy is borderline incomprehensible to me, and I can usually understand anyone regardless of how thick an accent or erroneous syntax they may use.

That's not the worst of it, but it's an example of how silly things are.

And to make matters worse, an awful lot of people have no trouble going to a class taught by someone who really shouldn't teach anything, but have concerns about me because I am Australian.

It's an accent thing, something of which I am largely free from nowadays.

I need a new job. Is it obvious? ;)

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

But it probably doesn't mean what it says - sometimes it will and in others it will probably mean "In my opinion and you can lump it". Context is important.

Very true. I usually use it mean "This is my opinion. I don't expect anyone to agree, but I also doubt that anything said will change my mind."

Aren't words wonderful things? :innocent:


I didn't read Tripper's post that way. My take on his post was that some people with large vocabularies use it in order to sound more "snobbish", when simpler words would do the trick.

My mistake... this thread is long and even after quickly rescanning over it before posting I screwed up who started it. :B I was thinking of LGS, not Tripper, so I went off on a tangent... :doh:


As to your point, I don't remember anything in this thread (and I'm not reading it again) about the political non answers or vague speak you refer to. However, I agree with the thrust of your post.

I was merely referring to them as examples of the way wordsmiths have twisted language for purposes other than communication. Including the excessive or redundant use of superlatives to give a false impression.



[Pauses and takes a deep breath] I was sooo tempted to slip a few extras into the above myself, but resisted the temptation... just. :U

[pawnhead]

Sorry, for some reason its not working and i probably cant spell it either.
astrid:UOh, I wasn't intending to comment on your apostrophe, and I didn't even notice. I just saw an opportunity to jump in with some junk I found on the web.

BTW, Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/) is a good resource for defining acronyms, and keeping up your street cred with the latest in our ever evolving language.
If you wish to embiggen your vocabulary, you'll find it most cromulent (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cromulent).

[JDarvall]

I didn't read Tripper's post that way. My take on his post was that some people with large vocabularies use it in order to sound more "snobbish", when simpler words would do the trick.

Well, actually.....I mean't both. I think many have good reason to get naturally suspicious when anybody complicates simple english.

I just want to know what he's saying. You can do that with simple words. Theres more than enough already.

More unusual words may seem more concise and will only have that affect to those who use them all the time. Else the opposite is true isn't it. Misleading. Just wasting peoples time. Not only do we have to read through all of it , but to understand it we have to have the interest (and time) to learn and maintain that education. I'm not going to spend my free time reading through bloody dictionarys and shakespeare etc.

I mean. Does anybody here naturally switch off when a politician speaks ? I do....Even if you try to listen, do you really learn anything of value from a 2 minute speach, thats full of perfect phrase and grammer etc. You don't learn anything.

IMO, what motivates people mostly to speak and write this way, is not to sound precise.......its because its the thing to do in the part of the world they live in. OR.....appearances.....they realised it can be used to sway people opinion....it ultimately makes money for them....OR they feel superior....OR because they study it, because thats all their good at etc etc....but ultimately a lot of it ends up as untangable shyt.

Things like that motivates actions in this world. NOT, just because its important that words are used in the most concise way possible. That has very little to do with it . IMO.

[LGS]

Tripper,
You are right regarding plain English.
It's the use of redundant superlatives that is the most troubling. If you want another example, try Diva. A term that once referred to a singer who has done her dues and has an excellent voice and delivery. Now it's just any old singer who wants to call herself that.
Language is a dynamic thing and so it should be, but the incorrect or spurious use of words can have great effects.
If you think the use of the term "acceptable collateral damage" to refer to the death of innocent people does not affect the morality of a society, then think again. Terms like this convert humans into numbers and anaesthetise the general public into accepting these deaths as inevitable.

Regards,

Rob

[silentC]

I bet there were letters just like this written to the The Times 100 years ago :)

[Gingermick]

Well I invariably use polysyllabic expressions in my epistolary ramblngs. :D

[JDarvall]

Tripper,
If you think the use of the term "acceptable collateral damage" to refer to the death of innocent people does not affect the morality of a society, then think again. Terms like this convert humans into numbers and anaesthetise the general public into accepting these deaths as inevitable.


I suppose Rob. Its seems to be an interest of yours. I don't understand it. But then a lot of people don't understand my interests either.

As for ......'acceptable collateral damage'...... as in something a yanky general may say to the american people ?

Its a horrible statement isn't it. But it doesn't make me feel accepting of it. A comment like that would actually strengthen my distate for it, not sway me to be accepting. Like many others Id say. Just as I'd imagine there would always be a resistance to it somewhere in the states. For starters, all relatives of dead soliders would react badly instantly wouldn't they ? uno, would a statement like that really influence that much ?

I don't really know. All I know is, I like honesty. And mostly I sense it from simple plain english. As I imagine most do.

[LGS]

Spot on Tripper.

[Frank&Earnest]

Missed two days of this, and already there is enough here for a dozen ramblings of my own.
I will stick just to the opening post, as a glaring example of how deep into the proverbial anyone of us (especially me :D) is likely to get debating this stuff.

You keep referring to redundant "superlatives", LGS, and nobody so far has picked you up on the fact that you actually mean "qualifying adjectives".

Incidentally, you are right about "very, rather, quite, etc. unique". But there could be some justification for other qualifying adjectives. For example, "relatively unique" could be true, albeit arguably a less than optimal expression of the concept, when the uniqueness described applies only in relation to particular circumstances. The issue here seems to be that "relatively" is used incorrectly to mean "rather".

Next...:)

[LGS]

Hi Frank and Ernest,
Good point. They are qualifying adjectives, but in some cases are superlatives as well and are redundant such as "totally unique" This is a qualifying adjective which also acts as a superlative by seeking to enhance the degree of uniqueness (which is redundant).
The main point I was trying to make was that (like myself:-) people corrupt language for their own gain.
With regard to unique, I cannot accept that any qualification is required or warranted. Here's the Princeton definition of unique. Note that it replaces several words with one. In no example is there a qualification.
Adjective

S: (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=unique&i=0&h=0000#c) (adj) alone (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=alone), unique, unequaled (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=unequaled), unequalled (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=unequalled), unparalleled (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=unparalleled) (radically distinctive and without equal) "he is alone in the field of microbiology"; "this theory is altogether alone in its penetration of the problem"; "Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint"; "craftsmen whose skill is unequaled"; "unparalleled athletic ability"; "a breakdown of law unparalleled in our history"
S: (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=unique&i=1&h=0000#c) (adj) unique ((followed by `to') applying exclusively to a given category or condition or locality) "a species unique to Australia"
S: (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=unique&i=2&h=0000#c) (adj) singular (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=singular), unique (the single one of its kind) "a singular example"; "the unique existing example of Donne's handwriting"; "a unique copy of an ancient manuscript"; "certain types of problems have unique solutions"
S: (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=unique&i=3&h=0000#c) (adj) unique (highly unusual or rare but not the single instance) "spoke with a unique accent"; "had unique ability in raising funds"; "a frankness unique in literature"; "a unique dining experience"Regards,

Rob

[pawnhead]

Incidentally, you are right about "very, rather, quite, etc. unique". But there could be some justification for other qualifying adjectives. For example, "relatively unique" could be true, albeit arguably a less than optimal expression of the concept, when the uniqueness described applies only in relation to particular circumstances. The issue here seems to be that "relatively" is used incorrectly to mean "rather". OK, I'm going to maintain my penchant for being anal, by disagreeing with you there.
'Unique' doesn't come in shades of grey and there's no degrees to it. Something is either unique, or it's not. Saying something is 'relatively unique' is like saying that someone is 'relatively pregnant'. Like a light switch, it's either on or off, but not 'relatively on'. You could say that something is relatively rare since scarcity can be measured in degrees, and used comparatively.

S: (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=unique&i=3&h=0000#c) (adj) unique (highly unusual or rare but not the single instance) "spoke with a unique accent"; "had unique ability in raising funds"; "a frankness unique in literature"; "a unique dining experience"Regards,

RobI'd have to disagree with the dictionary there as well. If it's not a single instance, then you're over emphasizing for dramatic effect, and you're technically wrong.
A French accent is unique amongst accents when compared to other languages, but to say that someone has a unique French accent implies that his particular accent is the only one of its kind. It's a bastardization of the word using it to imply otherwise.
Of course it's OK to use the word in the above manner because the criteria for definition is subjective. Everyone is unique, as are their accents, as are each of their dining experiences, etc.

I could say that I'm the 'best' carpenter in Sydney if I was trying to sell myself to a client. Many would disagree with me, but I may be lucky and find someone who doesn't. Of course there's nothing wrong with me saying that, but unless I am the actual best carpenter in the Sydney, then I'd be wrong in my assumption, and I'd be simply blowing my own horn. A client could also refer me to someone else as being the 'best' carpenter in Sydney, but obviously, unless he's tried every other carpenter he wouldn't know. A lot of companies boast about being the 'best', because there's been no clinical comparisons. In that case they'd either be making assumptions, or they'd be lying.

Any other definition would reduce 'best' to meaning 'rather good', and 'unique' to meaning 'rather rare'.

[LGS]

Pawnhead,
I agree with you, I think the dictionary is a little wayward.

Regards,

Rob

[Gingermick]

You're a remarkably unique bunch of blokes and sheilas.:)

And by that I mean you are unique in your remarkableness, not remarkable in your uniqueness
So I shoulda said uniquely remarkable.

[silentC]

Uniqueness is a bit of a paradox though. It's actually impossible to tell in most cases whether or not a thing is truly unique. By saying that something is unique, you are implying that there is no other example that can be rated higher in the quality on which the uniqueness is judged. So a thing is only unique until another thing of the same type that is more unique is found. So it is an abstract concept, and therefore a bit hard to be really certain about. OK, that might be a unique point of view, but maybe someone else has taken it a step further? :wink:

[Pusser]

Unfortunately dictionaries record usage so if enough dumblewits, who do not know the meaning of a word, use a word wrongly, its meaning and hence dictionary definition migrates. The rate of change is now greater than at any time since the King James Bible effectively stabilised English. I bet by within 20 years unique will have formally migrated to be a synonym for "special" or "unusual" and will require a qualifier if we mean "unique" as some of us know it today. Hate it. Hate thesauruses (sp?), But I also hate death and taxes and that is not going to change them.

Pusser

[LGS]

Uniqueness is a bit of a paradox though. It's actually impossible to tell in most cases whether or not a thing is truly unique. By saying that something is unique, you are implying that there is no other example that can be rated higher in the quality on which the uniqueness is judged. So a thing is only unique until another thing of the same type that is more unique is found. So it is an abstract concept, and therefore a bit hard to be really certain about. OK, that might be a unique point of view, but maybe someone else has taken it a step further? :wink:
Boy, now we're reeeally getting out there Silent.
A unique object or point of view or whatever shall be unique at the time when nothing else matches it. Therefore it must be related to time. However it should be declared as unique within the limits of other known similar and possibly unique entities, at the time of its being mentioned, shouldn't it?:?:oo:

Rob

[silentC]

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...

[pawnhead]

By saying that something is unique, you are implying that there is no other example that can be rated higher in the quality on which the uniqueness is judged.It doesn’t necessarily imply quality, or a high rating.
OK, that might be a unique point of view,
Q.E.D.

j/k :wink:

[silentC]

It doesn’t necessarily imply quality, or a high rating.
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.

[Koala-Man]

Tripper,
If you think the use of the term "acceptable collateral damage" to refer to the death of innocent people does not affect the morality of a society, then think again. Terms like this convert humans into numbers and anaesthetise the general public into accepting these deaths as inevitable.

Regards,

Rob

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.

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.

[silentC]

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.

[Frank&Earnest]

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

[jerryc]

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

[Frank&Earnest]

"Sophistication" originally meant adulterated, artificial coming from the Greek Sophists who were fallacious, quibbling reasoners.



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.

[LGS]

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".

[Pusser]

Lots of sophistication round here!:U

Pusser

[astrid]

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:)

[echnidna]

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:

[JDarvall]

Try getting through to a teenager the difference between lend and borrow.


Stuff like this is what confuses me allllll the time:D. Why are two words needed to describe essentially the same action.

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.

[Koala-Man]

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.

[Groggy]

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.

[Frank&Earnest]

Frank and Ernest,

First (repeated) mistake. No Ernest here, only one earnest Frank.:rolleyes:




I'm not sure that its valid to just decide that the dictionary actually meant to say "relatively to". It doesn't say that.


OK, forget the dictionary. When you say "unique to Australia", what do you mean if it is not "unique relatively (or other equivalent expression) to Australia"? I am really curious to see how you wriggle out of this one. It would deserve the Nobel Prize for Sophistry! :D




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.


Was not your point that you dislike it when it is used in this way?
Or did you mean to say it should be used by itself even in the context of "rare"? If so, do you really mean that it is ok to say "rather rare" but it is not ok to say "rather unique" if it is meant to convey the same meaning?



Also, I'm yet to see a "heavily almost on light switch".

Yes, and? (without going to the sophistry of flickering bad contacts...:D)

[pawnhead]

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".She's still pregnant though. A light with a dimmer may be 'lightly' (s'cuse the pun) on, but it's still on, and not 'relatively' on.
when one says unique to, it means unique 'relatively' to, therefore one can say "relatively unique".No you can't. The 'to' is simply used to define where the uniqueness is located, not an invitation for comparison, eg. 'Monotremes are unique to Australia'. That doesn't mean that you'll find them anywhere else. You can't say that 'Crocodiles are unique to Australia' though because you'll find them in New Guinea. And I wouldn't say 'Monotremes are unique to Australia, relative to New Guinea' because then you're implying that you may find them elsewhere, so you'd have to list everywhere else in the universe to avoid confusion. It might be easier to say 'Monotremes are unique to Australia, relative to anywhere else in the Universe', but that's being superfluous.
And I know that we're not sure that they're unique to the universe, but we have to go on the best of our knowledge when you're talking about monotremes :wink:
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...:UThe neurotic is only upset because he got the raw end of the deal. You see the psychotic got 2.4 (rounded down to 2) + 2.4(rounded down to 2) = 4.8 (rounded up to 5) :q

[LGS]

Earnest Frank,
Why not call yourself that and avoid the possibility of error, or do you just lurk in wait.
Pawnhead has summed it up, but you asked me, so send off for the Nobel prize papers now.
Using the term "unique to Australia" means not found anywhere else. Relative has no place. There is no comparison (or invitation for the word comparatively to be introduced) with anything anywhere known to mankind. Explain to me what the uniqueness of a kangaroo is relative to.
I said the dictionary was a bit wayward, however, there is still no extra adjective used to qualify the uniqueness in the definition of "a rare event".
But it seems you just cast aside what you don't want to be included. Hence "forget the dictionary."
No point in continuing with you and your arguments. They are invalid as you refuse to accept a universal reference which makes a very clear definitions of unique, which don't fit in with your (il)logic

[Frank&Earnest]

Sorry guys, rushing off to the Woodgroup meeting, will reply later.

[astrid]

the router was not unique(see groggys definition)
just boggy or flawed
can we forget unique and get onto flawed?

astrid:U

[AlexS]

Try getting through to a teenager the difference between lend and borrow.



...or lend and loan.:doh:

[boban]

Earnest Frank,
Explain to me what the uniqueness of a kangaroo is relative to.


Australia.

[Groggy]

As an aside, how would you trap a unique kangaroo?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unique up on it of course :D:p:rofl::roflmao::sleez::bleh:

[Gra]

As an aside, how would you trap a unique kangaroo?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unique up on it of course :D:p

How do you catch a tame one.















Tame way:q:U:U

[jerryc]

On the ball Pusser. Let's keep a little humour in this and not take ourselves too seriously.

jerry