You are the king of Realtor-Publication Grammar, forging new usage pathways

<agent_orange> good god lord jesus take me now
<agent_orange> "become a member" indeed
<zompist> i honestly think he's not bright enough to make the pun intentionally
<CrazyClimber> that's a very unique benefit of the doubt
<zompist> ha ha! mr. editor said "very unique"!
<CrazyClimber> yeah
<CrazyClimber> unique may mean one-of-a-kind, but some one-of-a-kind things are more rare or unexpected than others
<CrazyClimber> hence, unique can be modified
<agent_orange> bullshit
<agent_orange> some one of a kind things are more rare than others?
<CrazyClimber> sure
<agent_orange> than what, than none-of-a-kind?
<Kyol> Well, I'd say that faberge eggs are of the common-ish "unique" sorts of things, but they're not that rare as a class.
<CrazyClimber> zackly
<CrazyClimber> i've got a handmade bed, it's one-of-a-kind, but it isn't anywhere near as unique as a guy with two noses
<Kyol> Versus the Hope diamond, which is unique in size and stands out in its class.
<zompist> see, that's just the sort of meaning degradation that bob's usage will slipperily-slopily lead to
<agent_orange> then unique is misued, IMO
<zompist> faberge eggs aren't unique at all; they're simply rare
<zompist> maybe more than rare-- blue
<CrazyClimber> but zomp, you haven't reacted to my example yet
<zompist> actually your analogous phrase very nicely undermines it
<zompist> can something be more or less one-of-a-kind?
<CrazyClimber> yeah says you
<CrazyClimber> sure
<zompist> "my bed is about 25% one of a kind!"
<zompist> you can only go that way if you've already watered it down to mean "rare"
<CrazyClimber> there's no other bed in the world exactly like it, but there are probably hundreds that are so close no one cares
<CrazyClimber> nonetheless, it's unique
<zompist> so it's mildly one-of-a-kind?
<agent_orange> you're making a value judgement
<agent_orange> "unique" doesn't carry a value other than "one of a kind"
<CrazyClimber> but the point is, sometimes one-of-a-kind is harder to achieve
<Kyol> I have unique shits all the time, it ain't nothin'.
<agent_orange> let me rephrase that
<agent_orange> shut up
<agent_orange> "one of a kind" should, in this argument, be "Only one of its kind"
<CrazyClimber> but is that one out of five or one out of a million?
<agent_orange> "being without like or equal: single in kind or excellence"
<agent_orange> CC: doesn't matter
<CrazyClimber> sure does
<agent_orange> how?
<CrazyClimber> i dunno, 20% vs. .00001% seems self-evident to me
<agent_orange> irrelevant
<CrazyClimber> or 0.000001, i think
<zompist> i think you're trying to give "unique" an odd meaning. the simplest explanation is that people water its meaning down to "rare"; no need to invent any rationalizations for it.
<CrazyClimber> not at all
<CrazyClimber> i'm not denying its uniqueness, which you seem to think i'm doing. i'm giving its uniqueness a context.
<zompist> fine, look up some instance of "very unique" with google, find evidence that people are estimating whether it's 1-of-100,000 or 1-of-1,000,000
<agent_orange> only one, without kind or equal, means there is *nothing* else to compare it to; saying, "What about one out of five million" is ... by definition not unique
<agent_orange> if you can put it in a pool of five million like things, you have no buisness saying it's unique, and I shell tell teacher
<CrazyClimber> well, i eagerly await the opportunity to visit your home planet
<agent_orange> pfft
<agent_orange> probably can cut corners like that when you're trying to find way to describe a 3bd, 2ba ranch, carpet, new app, A/C, cute, good curb appeal
<CrazyClimber> look, i've already won
<zompist> victory by affirmation!
* CrazyClimber signals the bored but patient rest of the channel that it's OK to come back now
<zompist> oh yeah, like sam will get you out of this
<CrazyClimber> what's to get out of? i proved my point.
<CrazyClimber> just don't call me at 2 AM when you finally get it.
<CrazyClimber> you can apologize here tomorrow.
<zompist> bob, don't turn crackpot on us. you're right because you think you are?
<agent_orange> did I say pfft already? oh, I see I did.
<Kyol> "turn", zomp?
<zompist> eh, trying to be nice
<CrazyClimber> ever since he grew that beard zomp's been reaching out like that.
<Kyol> I thought bob _was_ the channel crackpot.
<agent_orange> well, my big giant dictionary which is currently making it hard to type says that one meaning of "unique" is "notable", in which case "Most unique" is permissable. My Chicago manual and my trusty Fowler's English Usage say different.
<zompist> which dictionary, agto?
<agent_orange> WEbster's Third New International
<agent_orange> 1976
<Kyol> I'm the channel fag, spinn's the channel goth, bob's the crackpot, zomp is the channel word-guy, sam is the channel cornfucker, leth/sean are the channel surly drunks..
<CrazyClimber> so agt, if six billion people on earth have one nose and exactly one -- no more, no fewer -- person has two noses, that person is not unique?
<agent_orange> of course he is
<CrazyClimber> i win
<CrazyClimber> (again)
<agent_orange> you do not
<Kyol> I've lost the argument, here.
<zompist> bob's argument is "i win"
<Kyol> Oh, gotcha.
<agent_orange> if there are four dinosaurs left alive on earth, and one of them has a daisy growing from his head, he is also unique
<agent_orange> the nuber of non-unique things is IRRELEVANT when unique is taken to mean THE ONLY ONE OF ITS KIND
<agent_orange> there cAn be no others to compare it to
<agent_orange> thus unique
<agent_orange> Q.E.D.
<CrazyClimber> but you keep thinking i'm comparing
<CrazyClimber> heheh, now i *am* just trolling
<agent_orange> you are, bob
<agent_orange> shitheel
* Samwise refers to the D&D monster frequency classes: common, uncommon, rare, very rare, and unique. Unique always has a no. appearing of 1.
<Kyol> Sam: I always took "unique" to mean you'd only see one per episode, not per game world. i.e. you didn't kill the _only_ Roc of Ur-Nazgul, you just killed the only one you're likely to encounter.
<agent_orange> now we're into pure insantiy
<Kyol> (in the D&D thingusmabobber.)
<agent_orange> is a Nazgul more unique than a Faberge egg?
<Samwise> likely nothin. There's only one Orcus, ever.
<Kyol> Yeah, but weren't there some dubious "unique" monsters?
<Samwise> not that I'm aware of.
<agent_orange> no, but there are some unique retards
<agent_orange> ah, I see what CC is getting at
<agent_orange> Eyyyyeee seeeeee
<zompist> can you explain it better than he can?
<Kyol> Please explain for the rest of us, thanks!
<Kyol> I mean, I thik I get it, but I couldn't explain it.
<Samwise> I was sorta almost with him until the noses
<CrazyClimber> words into type doesn't cover it, but does point out that along with your parent's brother, "uncle" is a super-secret organization
<agent_orange> I'm working on it
<agent_orange> (I still think he's wrong)
<Kyol> Other than "there are different levels of uniqueness, which defines how intrinsicly unique it is. i.e. Every one of us is unique, but that doesn't mean much. A living dinosaur is _very_ unique, because it'd be the only one." sort of thing.
<CrazyClimber> that's close enough for a layperson
<agent_orange> he's saying--
<agent_orange> and I am quite sure he will correct me if I'm wrong--
<CrazyClimber> in fact, i'm wishing someone would op me
<Samwise> So, "more unique" should be interpreted to mean "unique according to more criteria"?
<agent_orange> that the qualities that make something "unique" can be more or less common, or pull from a larger pool
<zompist> i guess bob's suggestion is that "unique" has a little hidden meaning in it that refers to the size of the category, so "very unique" means "standing alone in a very large class"
<CrazyClimber> wow, sam got it with little words, and agt with big words
<agent_orange> and thus make his bead, which, bieng handmade, is one of a kind
<CrazyClimber> zomp came close but blew it with "suggestion"
<agent_orange> nevertheless less unique than his man with two noses
<zompist> no, i'm a stickler for this "evidence" thing
<zompist> i asked for some, and all i got was "i won i won"
<agent_orange> hmm
* agent_orange thinks
<CrazyClimber> ok
<CrazyClimber> i won uniquely
<Samwise> I think that's a new meaning for the word.
<zompist> so, i think you're just making up connotations to justify falling into an error editors usually disparage
<agent_orange> nope. unsupported by any reference I have within reach
<agent_orange> so there
<agent_orange> where that argument falls is in the implied comparison
<agent_orange> "more unique" than ... what?
* CrazyClimber helpfully steers the two pedants to page 1288 of m-w's 10th collegiate
<CrazyClimber> bottom of the first column
<CrazyClimber> where it starts "usage"
<raven> than something else on a sliding scale of uniquity, agt.
<CrazyClimber> no, no
<CrazyClimber> unique is never more or less than one of a kind
<agent_orange> the value judgement again
* raven just wanted to use the word "uniquity".
<agent_orange> then how, in comparing (1) to (1), do you get 1>1?
<CrazyClimber> heheh
<CrazyClimber> now, agt, report back once you've read that passage i helpfully pointed you to.
<agent_orange> you may also enjoy this, after you have descended from mount pompous: http://www.bartleby.com/116/108.html
<agent_orange> near the bottom
<Kyol> So, the lesson here, class, is that english is a bitch, and we should all learn esperanto.
<CrazyClimber> when was this written? when ben franklin was a kid?
<agent_orange> further enlightenment is provided at http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0293.html
<agent_orange> and that one is 1996
<CrazyClimber> you're probably still calling underwear "pantaloons"
<agent_orange> and the opinion hasn't changed
<agent_orange> although they shrug and give in to philistines such as yourself
<zompist> descriptive dictionaries allow meanings like "unusual" or "extraordinary", which is the watered-down sense i talked about from the first
<CrazyClimber> thus, i win
<agent_orange> fine, you win
<zompist> they don't justify it with wacky ad hoc rationalization, tho'
<agent_orange> you are the king of Realtor-Publication Grammar
<agent_orange> forging new usage pathways
<CrazyClimber> oh, actually, if you don't have the 10th collegiate, www.m-w.com has the same usage notes
<Samwise> It's frowned upon by most copy editors, isn't it?
<CrazyClimber> their cgi doesn't allow a link, so you'll have to do that part yourself
<agent_orange> not bob
<agent_orange> bob's all over "more unique"
<Samwise> In much the same way nookyoolar is a pronunciation listed in m-w?
<zompist> not neglect the ahd too: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/u/u0084800.html
<agent_orange> you should see what he does with "Roundest"
<Kyol> Well, I don't like more or less unique, but very unique doesn't razzle me. Go fig.
<zompist> look in vain for any mention of bob's suggestion
<CrazyClimber> dammit, meeting -- hold on
<agent_orange> ssssuuure
<agent_orange> I declare bob the loser
<agent_orange> going once
<Kyol> He called a quick meeting to discuss the usage of unique.
<agent_orange> going twice
<agent_orange> LOSER
<agent_orange> http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0293.html
<agent_orange> I could do this all day
<zompist> ok, i read bob's cite-- it has piss-nothing to do with his special meaning of unique
<zompist> it's just m-w's descriptivist defense of including the watered-down meaning, which they give as "unusual", exactly as i had it
<Kyol> Although I could think of arguments for more or less unique, too.
<Kyol> Not grammarian approved arguments, mind you.
<agent_orange> mostly having to do with nazgul
<zompist> eh, you're welcome to try, but we're going to believe you even less than bob
<agent_orange> fucking OED is a pay site
<Kyol> (the unique restuarant in town is now more unique because your servers are now all asexual midgets.)
<zompist> see, kyol, you're just using it to mean "unusual" or "extraordinary"
<Kyol> Extending the gap between the unique restuarant and the regular restuarants, as it were.
<zompist> once you water it down, sure, you can modify it.
<zompist> bob's problem is that he was caught watering it down, and had to invent a way no one's ever thought of before for why it was really okay
<Kyol> I have a hard time thinking of a non-watered down example of the proper usage of unique, though.
<zompist> "they'll kill me if i lose this book, it's unique"
<Samwise> Is it correct to specify a group, and *then* apply unique, like "Of the planets in our solar system, the earth is unique in that it has humans living on it" ?
<zompist> sure
<Samwise> Good. I use it that way.
<Kyol> OTOH, zomp, you of all people should be acutely aware that language changes.
<zompist> if you're using it correctly, you can probably paraphrase it as "the only one"
<zompist> eh, we've been over that ground already, with "irregardless"
<Samwise> *shudder*
<agent_orange> eep
<Kyol> Well sure, that's not even a word. This is simply the dilution of meaning of a word, which, as I understand it, is fairly common.
<zompist> nothing in linguistics says we can't make fun of the people who make a mistake first
<agent_orange> the only mistake I can think of that truly fits into the "nearly acceptable because language changes" argument is "If anyone loses their key, they will pay (etc etc)"
<zompist> singular they?
<agent_orange> you
<agent_orange> no, no
<agent_orange> anyone/their
<Samwise> Wow, that is a good example.
<agent_orange> as opposed to "his or her"
<Samwise> Right under the radar.
<zompist> i'm sure you could find a bunch more by opening any 19th-century grammar
<agent_orange> recent one, I should say. One that I've seen get entrenched
<zompist> well, actually, you'd have to distinguish the people's mistakes from the grammarians' mistakes
<zompist> i don't know if it counts as a former mistake, but the positive use of "any more" is interesting
<zompist> i've seen spinn use that a lot
<Kyol> I might be more used to rolling with it so long as the syntax isn't fucked. I've seen too many pedantic arguments over silly shit like, oh. "back in the day" vs. "back in my day" or the plurals to care any more. Do I get the intent? Great, now let's move on. But when people start getting all sms-speek r u ready 2 go 2 the show? I wanna bust some fuckin' heads, so eh.
<Kyol> (syntax? Might not be the word I was looking for..)
<CrazyClimber> back
<CrazyClimber> and annoyed, since my friend just wanted dating advice
<zompist> but not a date?
<CrazyClimber> not from me, fortunately
<CrazyClimber> i'm almost twice his age
<zompist> it's nice that he considers you relevant
<CrazyClimber> it's his first foray into online dating
<CrazyClimber> whereas i've been meeting losers for years
<Kyol> For which you are uniquely suited.
<agent_orange> tell him it'll be a unique experience
<agent_orange> DAMMIT