3

Family debate - one says that uniqueness is relative, others say something either is or is not unique. Does uniqueness mean that there is only one of a certain thing/person, so that it would mean more unusual than rare?

herisson
  • 81,803
Charlotte Karlan
  • 149
  • 6
    relevant: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/44566/are-the-rules-regarding-absolute-modifiers-too-absolute and all the questions that link to it – herisson Jan 29 '16 at 23:11
  • Yes. Though there are those whose panties are too tight to begin with and who will get them into a further knot at the suggestion, it's acceptable to say "more unique", "very unique", etc. Understand that we're not talking at a technical level, but at the level of everyday conversation. (And even at a technical level one could define a "degree of uniqueness" based on some mathematical measure of similarity between items.) – Hot Licks Jan 29 '16 at 23:11
  • 1
    In the original sense, it's nonsense. But in the expanded sense (and this has been covered before, and is given in dictionaries such as AHDEL and Collins – though Collins marks this usage as informal) 'unique' may be modified, if one is prepared to annoy the style police. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 23:33
  • 1
    The main reason not to use it, -- correct or not -- is that it will annoy pedants. There are people who throw books across rooms at such infractions. While pedantry of this form is childish, there are a few "mistakes" (such as this one) which have become such shibboleths in the field that some can never disregard them, or be charitable to the author in analysis of intended meaning, despite their unremarkable status, considered more widely. You never know when you may be addressing a pedant. Books have been written on the decline of civilization in response to lesser action: take care. – Dan Jan 30 '16 at 00:25
  • @DanSheppard -- it will annoy pedants -- And that's a bad thing? – Hot Licks Jan 30 '16 at 02:19
  • @edwinashworth. Spot on. Those who would have us speaking Middle English will protest most profusely. Anyone daring to post, please put on your flame retardant uniforms... – jimm101 Jan 30 '16 at 03:17

5 Answers5

4

I think it is all about usages, that these kind of adjectives are gradable. For example, the meaning of unique is derived from latin unus 'one'.

So, when its meaning is related to a mathematical concept it cannot be modified. But there is a second sense in unique meaning unusual or special, in this case it isn't related to the first sense i.e. being only one of its kind.

haha
  • 2,354
  • Suppose you have a bunch of objects, and you make measurements of them and post the measures in a table. If two objects have the exact same measurements then they are not unique. But what if two items have nearly the same measurements -- almost to within your margin of error? Are they unique or not? Depends on your criteria. Now consider 3 very similar objects. A differs from B by 0.0001 but differs from C (in the other direction) by 0.0002. B is more unique than C. – Hot Licks Jan 30 '16 at 03:45
  • 2
    Of those posted so far, I like this answer best. It recognises the precise (original?) version of the word as well as its semantic drift to something more generic. – Lawrence Jan 30 '16 at 04:12
3

Some people consider more unique acceptable, especially informally, while others consider it wrong or ugly for the reason you suggested. Most style guides would advise against it. The choice is yours, as always.

A quotation from Fowler's Modern English Usage (Burchfield ed.):

It must, I think, be conceded that unique is losing its quality of being 'not gradable' (or absolute), but copy editors are still advised to query* such uses while the controversy about its acceptability continues.

*) query (printing): a question mark (?), especially as added on a manuscript, proof sheet, or the like, indicating doubt as to some point in the text.

See also this question:

Are the rules regarding absolute modifiers too absolute?

Community
  • 1
Cerberus - Reinstate Monica
  • 61,585
1

Yes, something can properly be called "more unique". It's easy to construct an example.

You hold a contest asking for "unique barbecue ideas".

  • A flying barbecue is unique. It has one differentiating feature.
  • A flying barbecue that hums show tunes is unique. It has two differentiating features.
  • The flying, humming barbecue is more unique than the flying barbecue.

If I had a contest for "unique barbecues", the second is necessarily "more unique"--without making value judgements as to the uniqueness of, say, whether a flying barbecue is more unique than a dancing barbecue.

jimm101
  • 10,753
  • To the Haters: sorry, but a woman nine months pregnant is more pregnant than a woman who isn't pregnant at all, and there is verifiably a gray zone between the extremes. – jimm101 Jan 30 '16 at 03:18
  • 4
    The pedant might counter that the second barbecue (the one that hums as well) invalidates the uniqueness of the first. That is, once you have another flying barbecue, the first flying barbecue is no longer unique. – Lawrence Jan 30 '16 at 04:05
  • @Lawrence ... yes, which is why I staged this as a contest, with the implication that these are "sealed envelope submissions". Let's put it this way instead, if in one universe the single-attribute bbq was invented, would it be less unique than the two-attribute bbq? So don't get lost in the example--the general point is still hiding in there. – jimm101 Feb 01 '16 at 14:07
  • Interestingly enough, @ElmerCat's answer takes the unique or not, no middle ground position but uses an example that lends itself to shades of uniqueness. Yours seems to be the opposite - it takes the shades of uniqueness position, but lends itself more to the no middle ground position. I understand the intent of what you're trying to express and I'd accept that the two-attribute BBQ is more innovative, but having a greater number of unique features doesn't make something more unique; each is unique in its own universe. – Lawrence Feb 01 '16 at 14:29
  • I cannot agree that a woman who is nine-months pregnant is more pregnant than one who is not pregnant at all. The difference between the two women is one of class, not degree. Even then, A woman who is nine-months pregnant is not more pregnant that one who is one-month pregnant. – Charlotte Karlan Feb 01 '16 at 16:31
  • @CharlotteKarlan Conception/fertilization, and even pregnancy itself, is a process that has multiple steps. One would need to arbitrarily label one moment in the entire process as the transition from "pregnant" to "not pregnant". Despite the cliche, there is a gray zone, however narrow. Most concepts break down exactly this way when pulled apart into fine detail. When is a person an adult? – jimm101 Feb 02 '16 at 15:48
1

To say something is more unique than something else is not correct.

Unique means one of a kind. Something either is unique or it isn't. It's a "yes or no", "all or nothing", "true or false" kind of term.

For example, if you were to say "the Earth revolves around the Sun", that would be "true". If you then said, "the Moon revolves around the Earth and the Earth revolves around the Sun", that would also be true — but it wouldn't be more true than the first statement. They are simply both true.

It's the same way for uniqueness. Something may be more remarkable in it's uniqueness than something else, but it doesn't make it any more unique.

ElmerCat
  • 1,065
  • 1
    You might say that Jupiter revolving around the sun is an approximation. The sun and Jupiter revolving around their barycenter is a better approximation. This sets up a series of more true statements by measuring truth by its deviation from the absolute. You might say the absolute is then the truth, but the comparative term more true is still meaningful in that context. – Lawrence Jan 30 '16 at 04:08
  • @Lawrence It might be more descriptive, or more accurate, or more precise, but it's not more true. – ElmerCat Jan 30 '16 at 05:06
  • 2
    Something that's more accurate or precise is, by definition, more true. true; adjective "1. in accordance with fact or reality. synonyms: correct, accurate,...", "2. accurate or exact. synonyms: accurate, true to life, faithful, realistic,..."; adverb "1. literary truly. 'Hobson spoke truer than he knew' (emph mine) 2. accurately or without variation."; verb "1. bring into the exact shape, alignment, or position required." – MichaelS Jan 30 '16 at 05:22
0

Everything in the universe is unique, therefore nothing is truly unique, therefore uniqueness can only be thought of in shades of grey.

My car is unique. No other car in the world has a right fender dented quite like it, or a leaky valve cover with precisely the same pattern of oil down the side of the motor. But nobody is scrambling to buy my unique car for millions of dollars, because it's not unique in a unique or interesting way.

My fingerprints are unique. Like everyone else's. Two people with exactly the same, thereby non-unique, fingerprints would be far more unique than the rest of us with "unique" fingerprints.

From the Grammar Girl comments section:

There truly are many unique settings for a wedding.

The problem is they're all basically the same. They all have air to breathe, ground to stand on, probably have at least water and likely other refreshments, etc. If you want unique, try having a wedding in a zero-g vacuum, and the partners have to say their vows in Klingon sign language before they pass out or the wedding's permanently canceled. Of course, it's a wedding, with vows, and involves humans, so it's still not totally unique.

Every human on the planet is unique. Except we all eat, (hopefully) bathe, breathe air, poop, watch cat videos or something basically similar, and generally are exactly the same on a macro level.

Some people are the only people who've accomplished some specific task. Except everyone has done something that nobody else has done, even if it's as trivial as "carved this specific slogan on this specific rock on this specific day". So the uniqueness of being the only person to do something depends on the uniqueness of what was done, and whether anyone actually cares that you did it.

I could go on for eons. But at the end of the day, uniqueness has never been, and can never be, an absolute.

MichaelS
  • 552