Language and its abuse

[pawnhead]

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

Oh, 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 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.

[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.

[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 ) 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: (adj) alone, unique, unequaled, unequalled, 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: (adj) unique ((followed by `to') applying exclusively to a given category or condition or locality) "a species unique to Australia"
• S: (adj) 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: (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: (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

I'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?

[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?

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?

Rob