Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Site → Site & Forum Feedback → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
This is a unique complaint!
This follows on from reading Richard Hoover’s review of Detective From The Crypt. It’s not a complaint aimed just at Richard but at quite a number of reviewers, both here and in the outside world, who do not seem to understand the meaning of the word “unique”.
It means, quite simply, without like, a one off, etc.
Therefore you cannot use an adjective preceding unique as with Richard’s (and far too many other people - I don’t want Richard to think I’m singling him out as he was just the straw) “more unique”. That is an impossibility. Something is either unique or it isn’t!
You can have something unique within an environment such as “he was unique within the crowd having green eyes, one leg and a badly fitting wig” (sounds like an adventure game character 
) thus allowing for the existence of the same elsewhere but it needs that caveat.
Rant over 
Life is what it is.
You’ve cited one definition but not another, as here from Merriam-Webster with examples that disprove your point:
3: UNUSUAL
// a very unique ball-point pen
// we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn’t one good mixer in the bunch — J. D. Salinger
These kinds of arguments may be fun little logic problems, but on a more practical level, writers are bound to favour language that allow the most flexibility. I mean, if we’re going to go full pedant, there shouldn’t even be such a word as “unique” in this context (or conversely, “identical”) as absolutely everything is unique in some way and nothing is absolutely identical in comparison to anything else. Everything falls somewhere on the spectrum in between. Hence the extra adjectives to indicate which direction.
You’ve cited one definition but not another, as here from Merriam-Webster with examples that disprove your point:
3: UNUSUAL
// a very unique ball-point pen
// we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn’t one good mixer in the bunch — J. D. SalingerThese kinds of arguments may be fun little logic problems, but on a more practical level, writers are bound to favour language that allow the most flexibility. I mean, if we’re going to go full pedant, there shouldn’t even be such a word as “unique” in this context (or conversely, “identical”) as absolutely everything is unique in some way and nothing is absolutely identical in comparison to anything else. Everything falls somewhere on the spectrum in between. Hence the extra adjectives to indicate which direction.
Sorry Jackal, there’s no way I’m going to agree with that. All that is is typical American justification for appalling grammar. I know you Americans like to make a verb out of every noun going making what you’re trying to say needlessly ugly.
Some things are unique, others not. If I print 50 copies of a letter I’ve created on my PC then you’re trying to tell me that each one is different in some way - and please, don’t go down to molecular level as I think far too highly of you for you to attempt that sort of thing.
People will say that languages evolve and, yes, of course they do. Some Americanisms I think of as great additions to the English language (brunch and squits for example) but I’m never going to accept the incorrect usage of the word unique. I know it’s not unique (ho-ho 
) to Americans - us Brits are pretty poor in this as well - but both your used justifications are American based hence me targeting there.
The definitions used are where incorrect usage has become prevalent and it becomes easier to justify it/re-categorise the word than to pull people up and educate them as to how the word should be used. This covers all sorts of words. Over here in the UK the word hack has become synonymous with trick for some strange reason as an example.
I know that you won’t be agreeing with me but there you go I doubt either of us will lose any sleep over this; at least I hope not 
Life is what it is.
I admire your bravery Jabod, arguing against your country’s (arguably the world’s) most prestigious university:
(Source: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary)
unique
/juˈniːk/
1 being the only one of its kindEveryone’s fingerprints are unique.
Each item has a unique 6-digit code.
unique in something Her lawyer said the case was unique in French law.
unique in doing something Saturn’s largest moon is unique in having an atmosphere made mostly of nitrogen.You can use absolutely, totally or almost with unique in this meaning.
2 very special or unusualThe preview offers a unique opportunity to see the show without the crowds.
This house has many unique features, including a 45-foot-long outdoor swimming pool.
He approaches problems in his own unique way.
The vast red sand dunes are what makes this area unique.
a unique talent
The deal will put the company in a unique position to export goods to Eastern Europe.
He brings a unique combination of skills to this project.
I feel I have a unique perspective on the situation.
his unique style of leadership
The museum provides a unique experience for anyone with an interest in naval history.
Unfortunately your situation is not unique among assistants in New York.
You can use more, very, etc. with unique in this meaning.
If Jackal is American then I am Belgian.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Thanks, Luhr. I actually went to Oxford first but didn’t see a way to do a word search, so I settled for M-W.
But yeah, I’m not arguing anything. Words have meanings, and often more than one.
If Jackal is American then I am Belgian.
Indeed!
Thanks, Luhr. I actually went to Oxford first but didn’t see a way to do a word search, so I settled for M-W.
But yeah, I’m not arguing anything. Words have meanings, and often more than one.
If Jackal is American then I am Belgian.
Indeed!
In which case profound apologies Jackal. I think I’ve assumed American all this time due to the time(s) at which you appear to post.
As far as any dictionary goes I’ll use exactly the same argument as before. It’s just laziness on trying to keep the purity of the word versus sloppy use of said word thus lowering the accuracy of language (and this applies to all languages, not English alone).
But to go back to my original complaint and to express it in a different manner.
Can someone please explain what is meant by this sentence and how “more unique” is accurate use of the words in any meaning.
“Each family member has their own distinctively appointed room in the manor, made even more unique via the clever use of wallpaper and lighting”
Apologies to Richard for all this as he might be thinking I’m picking on him but I’m not, honestly. I’m aware of how such poor grammar is slipping into accepted standards and, as said in my original post, that was the proverbial straw.
Hey! I’ve just realised. I’m becoming Victor Meldrew. 
Life is what it is.
In which case profound apologies Jackal. I think I’ve assumed American all this time due to the time(s) at which you appear to post.
Pssst… he’s Canadian
But to go back to my original complaint and to express it in a different manner.
Can someone please explain what is meant by this sentence and how “more unique” is accurate use of the words in any meaning.“Each family member has their own distinctively appointed room in the manor, made even more unique via the clever use of wallpaper and lighting”
I’m a bit of a purist too, in my own language of course, but I have no problems with unique. The wallpaper alone would make the room unique, but there’s also the lighting. Two unique aspects, so more unique.
More than what, I can hear you cry. Well, I did my best. 
Hey! I’ve just realised. I’m becoming Victor Meldrew.
LOL! No way, not with that sweet innocent avatar.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Thanks, Luhr. I actually went to Oxford first but didn’t see a way to do a word search, so I settled for M-W.
But yeah, I’m not arguing anything. Words have meanings, and often more than one.
If Jackal is American then I am Belgian.
Indeed!
In which case profound apologies Jackal. I think I’ve assumed American all this time due to the time(s) at which you appear to post.
As far as any dictionary goes I’ll use exactly the same argument as before. It’s just laziness on trying to keep the purity of the word versus sloppy use of said word thus lowering the accuracy of language (and this applies to all languages, not English alone).
But to go back to my original complaint and to express it in a different manner.
Can someone please explain what is meant by this sentence and how “more unique” is accurate use of the words in any meaning.“Each family member has their own distinctively appointed room in the manor, made even more unique via the clever use of wallpaper and lighting”
Apologies to Richard for all this as he might be thinking I’m picking on him but I’m not, honestly. I’m aware of how such poor grammar is slipping into accepted standards and, as said in my original post, that was the proverbial straw.
Hey! I’ve just realised. I’m becoming Victor Meldrew.
Alright I tried, but I can’t help it, I’m going to respond. I still have a case of post-work ramble brain, so this is going to be a doozy. For what it’s worth: an apology for advance.
tldr; what Luhr28 said.
I get the desire to give each word a unique meaning, for clarity’s sake. A major problem with this: language can be described as a more or less solidified discussion of rules and meaning at any given time. Even with the solidified structure in place, there are always shifts and negotiations going on in the background. It has to do with stuff like power, history and community, which I find super fascinating, but I’ll try to keep that tangent at bay.
There are certain words in all languages I know of that are antonyms of themselves. Fast can mean solidly fixed in place, or moving rapidly. The same word also has a meaning that is unrelated to state or motion: ritualized abstinence.
One of the appealing aspects of writing is to use the space and tension between form and meaning to produce a certain effect. The organisation of language gives room to chaos, flexibility and certain intricacies that can be considered interesting or beautiful. To give each word one specific meaning would be a disservice to creative writing in particular and communication in general.
To focus on the word unique, specifically: it is a charming irony that unique can be both absolute and relative, because the strongest association is “one of a kind” and “unlike anything else”. The fact that the word unique does not have a singular and unique meaning.. I hope I’m not the only one who finds that wonderful.
To answer your question: you could argue that the amount/level/rate of difference can vary. For example, if I produce bicycles from ready-to-go-assembly kits, each one will be unique in terms of the moment they are produced and assembled and the particular circumstances of that time. But in a general sense, they will not be very unique at all. If I decide to coat these bikes with paints of a different colour, this will increase the uniqueness in a small way.
The red bike will be relatively unique in regard to the other bikes I’ve painted blue.
If I make a bike out of wood, I’d make a bike that’s clearly different from the rest. I’m guessing it wouldn’t be completely one of a kind, as there are bound to be other people on the planet who’ve executed the same idea, but it’s closer your interpretation of the word. In other terms: it’s more unique than the bike that only has a different colour.
Now, if I somehow get my hands on some material from another planet that has never been used to produce a bike, I’d be able to make something that is truly one of a kind. But even then, it will share characteristics with other two-wheeled rider-propelled vehicles, the level of norm-deviation is just more radical.
If, besides intergalactic connections, I also had the capacity to invent an entirely new vehicle, unlike anything that came before, you might say we’re getting closer the absolute definition of the word unique.
I do get your annoyance with sloppy writing, though. I feel there is a stronger tendency to rely on cliche and uncritical writing/reading. My personal outlook: this isn’t due to a lack of rule awareness, but a lack of reflection, editing and an increased superficiality in the way we produce and use or “consume” information.
And since we’re clarifying, the statement above has nothing to do with Richard! I respect the hustle, Richard, do you.
Sometimes I write stuff that make me roll my eyes at myself.
Pssst… he’s Canadian
That’s really odd from my perspective as I had never considered Canadian as an option and I really like a whole host of Canadian musicians (Leonard Cohen, Jane Siberry, Godspeed You! Black Emperor to name but 3). And I know many Canadians are highly insulted by being thought of as American (sorry again Jackal).
I’m a bit of a purist too, in my own language of course, but I have no problems with unique. The wallpaper alone would make the room unique, but there’s also the lighting. Two unique aspects, so more unique.
I have absolutely no problem (using your example) with the room being unique or the light being unique but one cannot enhance the other’s “uniqueness”. The light is part of the room and therefore is part and parcel of that unique environment. Nice try though
More than what, I can hear you cry. Well, I did my best.
I think we can happily say that you know that you’ve failed there Karlok
To focus on the word unique, specifically: it is a charming irony that unique can be both absolute and relative, because the strongest association is “one of a kind” and “unlike anything else”. The fact that the word unique does not have a singular and unique meaning.. I hope I’m not the only one who finds that wonderful.
I can only say VP that I find all that is consistent with a language professor giving his class a script and telling them to find the errors within. All you’re doing is trying to justify the acceptance of the misapplication of the word unique. Now, I have to accept that its misuse has fallen into common parlance but it doesn’t mean that I have to accept said misuse. Tilting at windmills for sure but someone’s got to stand up for the accurate use of language even if they find themselves being pounded into the ground by falling dictionaries
Going back to your post then I think that you’ll find your own faults in the reasoning you expounded if you sit back and reconsider. Can’t fault the concept and it was an interesting read. And I definitely agree with you with regard to this being a fun/interesting/educational/boring (delete as appropriate) thread.
LOL! No way, not with that sweet innocent avatar.
I take it from that Karlok that you didn’t go through Don’s case files in Gibbous. If you had you’ll have found the file on Mia The Merciless which would mean that you would never use that description for said avatar. I was going to post a link to where Cami of Stuck In Attic was filmed creating that avatar but I’ve lost it and only have the mp4 file on my PC. Sad that as she really is a talented young lady.
Life is what it is.
I can only say VP that I find all that is consistent with a language professor giving his class a script and telling them to find the errors within. All your doing is trying to justify the acceptance of the misapplication of the word unique. Now, I have to accept that its misuse has fallen into common parlance but it doesn’t mean that I have to accept said misuse. Tilting at windmills for sure but someone’s got to stand up for the accurate use of language even if they find themselves being pounded into the ground by falling dictionaries
LOL! That paints quite a picture.
Going back to your post then I think that you’ll find your own faults in the reasoning you expounded if you sit back and reconsider.
I will give that a try. All that typing has to be good for something.
That’s really odd from my perspective as I had never considered Canadian as an option and I really like a whole host of Canadian musicians (Leonard Cohen, Jane Siberry, Godspeed You! Black Emperor to name but 3). And I know many Canadians are highly insulted by being thought of as American (sorry again Jackal).
Another Leonard Cohen fan! I still have his Songs from a Room album, which I bought in 1968. Plus a few cassette tapes I can’t play anymore and lots of DVDs. I almost cried when he died. Almost.
I think we can happily say that you know that you’ve failed there Karlok
Oh yes. However, I strongly object to the inappropiate use of the word happy.
Imo it boils down to idiolect, by definition truly unique with all its associations and connotations. Dictionary definitions are hardly convincing when a word has a slightly different meaning or use in someone’s idiolect.
I take it from that Karlok that you didn’t go through Don’s case files in Gibbous. If you had you’ll have found the file on Mia The Merciless which would mean that you would never use that description for said avatar. I was going to post a link to where Cami of Stuck In Attic was filmed creating that avatar but I’ve lost it and only have the mp4 file on my PC. Sad that as she really is a talented young lady.
Heh, Mia the Merciless’ looks are very deceiving. I haven’t played Gibbous, but she would have been a great addition to my series of female avatars.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Another Leonard Cohen fan! I still have his Songs from a Room album, which I bought in 1968. Plus a few cassette tapes I can’t play anymore and lots of DVDs. I almost cried when he died. Almost.
I’ve been a fan since hearing “Sisters Of Mercy” when “Songs Of” was released. Unfortunately, like many teenagers, I didn’t exactly look after my vinyl and I think I’m on my third copy of that album and my second copy of “Songs From A Room”. I own every official release of his on vinyl plus some CDs including bootlegs. Only saw him in concert once at the Royal Albert Hall in May 1988 on the “I’m Your Man” Tour.
Oh yes. However, I strongly object to the inappropiate use of the word happy.
Apologies for that. I stand chastised
Imo it boils down to idiolect, by definition truly unique with all its associations and connotations. Dictionary definitions are hardly convincing when a word has a slightly different meaning or use in someone’s idiolect.
Now that is probably the best I’ve ever heard on the subject and it’s certainly a point of view that will cheerfully reside in my head so thanks
Heh, Mia the Merciless’ looks are very deceiving. I haven’t played Gibbous, but she would have been a great addition to my series of female avatars.
I was rather pleased with my write-up for her as I thought it worked well and her Mum could definitely see her youngest daughter there. Just for information Mia’s portrait was done by Cami from a photo of Mia when she was around 24 to 26 months old. And I’m pleased to say that I found the link of it being created:
Life is what it is.
I’ve been a fan since hearing “Sisters Of Mercy” when “Songs Of” was released. Unfortunately, like many teenagers, I didn’t exactly look after my vinyl and I think I’m on my third copy of that album and my second copy of “Songs From A Room”. I own every official release of his on vinyl plus some CDs including bootlegs. Only saw him in concert once at the Royal Albert Hall in May 1988 on the “I’m Your Man” Tour.
I’ve never seen him live. 
I was rather pleased with my write-up for her as I thought it worked well and her Mum could definitely see her youngest daughter there. Just for information Mia’s portrait was done by Cami from a photo of Mia when she was around 24 to 26 months old. And I’m pleased to say that I found the link of it being created:
Thanks for the link. I really should play Gibbous and the Kickstarter project Near-Mage looks terrific.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Site → Site & Forum Feedback → Thread
