Language and its abuse

[Frank&Earnest]

Frank and Ernest,

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

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!

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...)

[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

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...

The 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)

[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

[AlexS]

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

...or lend and loan.

[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

[Gra]

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

How do you catch a tame one.















Tame way

[jerryc]

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

jerry

[Frank&Earnest]

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

First of all, this light hearted (Happy, Greg? ) 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...). 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?

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

I am still having fun, are you?

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

[pawnhead]

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

First of all, this light hearted (Happy, Greg? ) 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...). 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?

Yeh, 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?)
and funny mathematics seem just a way to avoid a straight answer...

They're both absolutes, and there's nothing funny about my mathematics

I am still having fun, do you?

It's very entertaining, but you know what they say about small things amusing small minds

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

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...

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?

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...