Your first OT thread. Much wow. More yay.

If by colloquial you really mean incorrect, then yes, you (and other people) are quite right.

Usage Notes

Many authors of usage guides, editors, teachers, and others feel strongly that such “absolute” words as complete, equal, perfect, and especially unique cannot be compared because of their “meaning”: a word that denotes an absolute condition cannot be described as denoting more or less than that absolute condition. However, all such words have undergone semantic development and are used in a number of senses, some of which can be compared by words like more, very, most, absolutely, somewhat, and totally and some of which cannot. The earliest meanings of unique when it entered English around the beginning of the 17th century were “single, sole” and “having no equal.” By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared: The foliage on the late-blooming plants is more unique than that on the earlier varieties. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing. See also a1, complete, perfect.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unique
 
Is it incorrect? Did you read the paragraph you quoted?

However, all such words have undergone semantic development and are used in a number of senses, some of which can be compared by words like more, very, most, absolutely, somewhat, and totally and some of which cannot. The earliest meanings of unique when it entered English around the beginning of the 17th century were “single, sole” and “having no equal.” By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared: The foliage on the late-blooming plants is more unique than that on the earlier varieties. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

I'm not sure why you're being such a pedantic stickler about it.
 
So?

I can't help it if I link to an interesting source that disagrees with me. I'd say it reflects on my fair-mindedness that I do so.

I don't see it indicates that I didn't read it, that's all. I still don't.
 
Fair-minded people typically change their minds when confronted with contrary information from authoritative sources.
 
This was one of my favourite threads: Racist art disgraces Czech EU presidency. 100% sarcastic, posted entirely to take the piss out of Winner (who has an excellent sense of humour). The great thing was, he had to defend the artwork because it's Czech, and thus claim that it's fine to joke about national stereotypes -- which gave me unlimited license to take the piss out of the Czech Republic (and other Eastern European nations (and France)).

It was just such a perfect thing: 1) frivolous use of the word "racist", 2) not really "art" in any meaningful sense, 3) done by a Czech guy, 4) all paid for by the EU and in the EU president's name, 5) mocking national stereotypes. It just ticked all the boxes, to this day I can't think of a better way of making fun of Winner.

My signature is from that work of art!
 
Fair-minded people typically change their minds when confronted with contrary information from authoritative sources.

Ah...

They may.

But in this case, although I accept that, from the source, people have been using "unique" in the sense of "very rare" rather than "only one" since the C19th, it's my position that they've been doing so incorrectly.

If "unique" really does mean "very rare" and that when I say "Mise is a unique person" I really mean "there are a few persons who are identical to Mise", what word would you suggest I use to refer to something of which there really is only one example?

Words are very often the source of misunderstandings. And it doesn't help, indeed quite the contrary, if people continually adopt a slapdash attitude to the meanings of those words.

Still, I don't really care, apples bringing marmalade jam farmers formerly waiter hurts slamdam archipelago wurtz. If you know what I mean.
 
They can indeed.

But now whenever I hear someone say such and such is "unique", I now have to ask "do you mean there's only the one or do you mean there are a few such things?"

It would have been handier, to me, if I knew that when they said "unique" they really did mean "unique" and not something else.

(I should get out more, I guess.)
 
I think the difference between "only one" and "very rare and unusual" is rather trivial. It's saying essentially the same thing and will generally get the same reaction, in the context of a conversation.
 
That's possibly true. Though in certain situations (if only I could think of one right now!) it might be really important to know the difference.

I just found it really useful to have a word which meant there was only a single example of whatever it was. I had the words for "unusual", and "rare" already. Now you, and your mates, have robbed me of "unique". Thanks a lot. Do you have a word to replace it?

"Hey, I've got a unique Van Gogh painting. Do you want to buy two or three of them? There's a discount for the round dozen."
 
That's possibly true. Though in certain situations (if only I could think of one right now!) it might be really important to know the difference.

The monster has been slain! Fortunately it is unique! Run for your lives!

You, my darling, are unique, and so is our love. I'll be back in a couple days.

This unique item is up for bids! Do I hear a hundred?

The strain of bacteria is unique, but once you have made it through the harrowing fever it can never infect you again.

Undoubtedly there are more, as these are hardly unique.
 
Back
Top Bottom