4

"More perfect" is presumably bad English (Preamble to the US Constitution notwithstanding), since something is either perfect (and thus can't be improved) or not.

"Less imperfect", however, seems to make sense. It means "having fewer flaws" or "closer to perfection".

The paradox: "more perfect" and "less imperfect" should mean the same thing, no?

The real question: is "perfect" binary or continuous? Or is this a weird case where "perfect" is binary, but "imperfect" is continuous, meaning these words aren't true opposites?

[I tried to work in a joke about English being imperfect, but couldn't find the perfect joke]

fiktor
  • 858
  • 1
    "Perfect" has many meanings, including "proficient", "lacking in no essential detail", "of an extreme kind", "corresponding to an ideal standard". These meanings don't strike me as unable to have comparatives. Other meanings of perfect are binary. – Kosmonaut Dec 30 '10 at 20:05
  • I don't get it: the only possible way for "more perfect" and "less imperfect" to be equivalent would be if "perfect" and "imperfect" were equivalent. I mean, it goes [imperfect] < [less imperfect] < [perfect] < [more perfect], doesn't it? – Marthaª Dec 19 '12 at 02:49

6 Answers6

7

Many of the senses of perfect are comparable, so there is no reason to presume that more perfect is somehow “bad English”. The many examples of that usage, even in very formal writings, such as the U.S. Constitution, should be sufficient proof of that. Frankly, the idea that you could use a “logical” argument to declare some usage “bad English” is in itself fallacious. It is easy to forget that most words have multiple meanings and can be used in more than one way. On a related note, the same is true of unique.

nohat
  • 68,560
4

The paradox: "more perfect" and "less imperfect" should mean the same thing, no?

I wouldn't say that's a paradox. To my intuition, "perfect" denotes the extreme point in a continuum. Everything else in that continuum is thus "imperfect". Therefore, "more perfect" makes no sense to me, as you point out. But "less imperfect" does.

However, I have learnt that "perfect" is used in comparisons in everyday language. I am aware that some reputed dictionaries and linguists are against prescriptive advice, but since this is a Q&A site, I'd rather position myself and give positive advice. Fowler's reads on this matter:

in most circumstances perfect is used as an absolute adjective, but there are somewhat rare occasions when the speaker has in mind a near approach to such a state and a comparative adj. or the adverb very may be appropriately used with it.

In conclusion, I would try to avoid to use "perfect" in a comparison, with the only exceptions of metaphorical or approximate usages of the underlying concept of perfection.

CesarGon
  • 3,595
  • Thanks! I realized that myself later when I replaces "perfect" with "happy". Does this argument work for "unique"? The number of existing "copies" of something is a natural number between 0 and infinity (a discretum, not a continuum), so could "more unique" mean "closer to having 1 instance"? Of course, that would have the weird consequence that a 1-of-a-kind item would be more unique than an item that no longer exists. –  Dec 28 '10 at 21:02
  • 3
    I think you are trying to push real language through the funnel of logical language too hard. While logicality may be of concern regarding real language, it is by no means alone: there are also tradition, aesthetics, practicality, random but common patterns, and many more. "More unique" is generally depreciated, because "unique" means "that there is only one of", so that "more unique" would mean "that there is only one of, but to a higher degree", which doesn't really make sense. But I am sure there other phrases that do not make sense and are yet accepted. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Dec 29 '10 at 04:23
  • 2
    I have never bought into the objection to "more unique". Unique does not only mean "only one of". It also means "being without like or equal", "distinctively characteristic", or "unusual". People who insist "more unique" doesn't make sense are getting too hung up on etymology. Etymology is never proof of meaning. "Perfect" also has a number of different meanings, some of which are not binary. – Kosmonaut Dec 30 '10 at 19:59
  • @Kosmonaut: +1 That's an interesting perspective. Could you give an example of a meaning of "perfect" that is not binary, please? – CesarGon Jan 02 '11 at 18:49
  • @CesarGon: Non-binary meanings of perfect: "proficient", "corresponding to an ideal standard", "of an extreme kind", "accurate". – Kosmonaut Jan 02 '11 at 19:30
  • @Kosmonaut: Thanks for the examples. Although I see your point, I am not convinced that "perfect" means "proficient" in general use; it may be helpful to explain the particular phrase "practice makes perfect", but that's it (and that would be arguable). In addition, I don't think that "corresponding to an ideal standard" or "of an extreme kind" are non-binary; they both denote unique, non-gradable properties to me, as indicated by the words "ideal standard" and "extreme". Something is "of an extreme kind" or is not, there are no intermediate states. – CesarGon Jan 03 '11 at 01:40
  • @CesarGon: From Dictionary.com: "A few usage guides still object to the use of comparison words such as more, most, nearly, almost, and rather with perfect on the grounds that perfect describes an absolute, yes-or-no condition that cannot logically be said to exist in varying degrees. The English language has never agreed to this limitation. Since its earliest use in the 13th century, perfect has, like almost all adjectives, been compared... Perfect is compared in most of its general senses in all varieties of speech and writing." – Kosmonaut Jan 03 '11 at 02:32
  • @Kosmonaut: I am aware that Merriam-Webster and Random House dictionaries tend towards permissiveness (dictionary.com is based on them). I prefer to be guided by Fowler's, which states that although "perfect" can be compared, this is appropriate only "is certain circumstances". Fowler's reads "in most circumstances 'perfect' is used as an absolute adjective, but there are somewhat rare occasions when the speaker has in mind a near approach to such a state and a comparative adj. or the adverb 'very' may be appropriately used with it." – CesarGon Jan 03 '11 at 02:52
  • @CesarGon: Suit yourself. I'm interested in how language is actually used. It does not require anyone's permission. – Kosmonaut Jan 03 '11 at 03:08
  • @Kosmonaut: I am interested in that too. But I am also interested in guidance on different registers of language and what's considered proper and improper use. As a non-native speaker of English, a dictionary such as Merriam-Webster, which describes "ain't" as "flourishing", is of no much use to me, because it confuses rather than clarifies. And I am aware that this criticism has been made widely; it's not just me. I appreciate it when a dictionary positions itself regarding usage guidelines. Anyway, we're off topic now for sure. But thanks for your point, which I voted up. – CesarGon Jan 03 '11 at 03:18
  • @CesarGon: Pardon me, but M-W says "although widely disapproved as nonstandard and more common in the habitual speech of the less educated, ain't in senses 1 and 2 is flourishing in American English." Nobody would read that and think that they should use ain't anywhere. Dictionary.com says "perfect is compared in most of its general senses in all varieties of speech and writing", which also tells you which registers see this kind of use (all of them). On the other hand, a dictionary that injects its own agenda will confuse people, because it is no longer purely fact-based. – Kosmonaut Jan 03 '11 at 03:29
  • @Kosmonaut: Indeed. M-W has been described as "the longest political pamphlet ever put together by a party" by Jacques Barzun. :-) I guess no work is free from an agenda. – CesarGon Jan 03 '11 at 03:34
  • @CesarGon: Funny you mention that, since the quote was in reaction to the 3rd edition's lack of prescriptivism. Jacques Barzun also railed against the evils of saying "not too good", calling such usage a "widespread illiteracy". Which is more misleading, or has more of an agenda: " ain't is nonstandard, but flourishing" or "saying not too good is illiterate"? – Kosmonaut Jan 03 '11 at 04:10
  • @Kosmonaut: I couldn't say, honestly. I think that no work is free from an agenda, implicit or explicit. And dictionaries, in particular, are heavily politised. – CesarGon Jan 03 '11 at 04:12
  • @CesarGon I think the important thing to consider is that the idea that perfect should not be compared is merely the opinion of some usage critics, and that perfect is frequently compared in English is a fact. The dictionaries give the facts of usage without injecting their opinion. Surely there is value in knowing that some critics do criticize the usage—I will not contest that—but it is more important not to assert opinions as facts. We should ascribe opinions to those who hold them and let readers decide for themselves from all the facts. – nohat Jan 03 '11 at 04:48
  • @nohat: I know all that. But the OP is asking for guidance, and I am trying to provide that and be helpful. I am an academic and I am familiar with the standards of scholar practice. At the same time, I acknowledge that, in order to be pragmatic, academicism alone is sometimes not enough, and we need to position ourselves, as I have tried to point out in my previous comments when I said that no work is free from an agenda. I just manifested a personal preference for a particular one. – CesarGon Jan 03 '11 at 18:42
  • The problem is that your opinionated guidance is not identified as such but is instead masquerading as fact. – nohat Jan 03 '11 at 18:51
  • @nohat: Sorry, but where am I being opinionated or masquerading? I am quoting Fowler's, a well known reference in the field, and adopting that as the guidance I am offering. I am also acknowledging that no work (including the one I choose to quote) is free from bias. Would you please explain your quite insulting statement? – CesarGon Jan 03 '11 at 18:57
  • In your answer you write “"more perfect" makes no sense”. – nohat Jan 03 '11 at 19:00
  • @nohat: Yes, but then I refined that through comments and discussion, where I quote the work mentioned and I explain why I say what I say. I don't think we should look at the answer only and disregard the comments. If you would like me to edit my answer and incorporate the contents of my comments, I can do that as well. Shall I? – CesarGon Jan 03 '11 at 19:04
  • Yes, absolutely. The comments are just comments, but the answer stands as you originally wrote it and many people ignore comments. Plus, if you edit your answer I will be able to remove my downvote. (You cannot change your vote on an answer unless it is edited). – nohat Jan 03 '11 at 19:12
  • @nohat: I have edited my answer now, trying to summarise the results of the comments and the discussion. – CesarGon Jan 03 '11 at 19:27
  • 1
    This answer is much improved, so I removed my downvote. I still don't agree, but c'est la vie. – nohat Jan 04 '11 at 21:40
  • @nohat: +1 Thanks for your understanding. – CesarGon Jan 04 '11 at 23:37
  • Even in the purely logical sense, it's possible to be "more unique": Fred is unique in that he is the only man in the country with red hair, but Jim is the only man with blue hair and also the only individual with four eyes -- making him even more unique ;-) – psmears Feb 08 '11 at 20:08
  • @psmears: I don't see the logic in that. Jim is unique (as unique as Fred, if I may say so), but in relation to a different criterion. – CesarGon Feb 08 '11 at 20:59
  • @CesarGon: Jim is unique on two counts - one identical to Fred's, give or take the colour, and one different - and thus, in a meaningful, quantifiable way "more unique". (I don't claim any great significance for this - hence the smiley - other tnan being an amusing way to counter people who violently object to "most unique" and its ilk on the grounds of being "not logical".) – psmears Feb 09 '11 at 07:30
  • @psmears: Sorry, but I am not convinced. :-) I promise I am being honest; the reasoning that you provide does not appeal to my logic at all. I would say that Jim is doubly unique, or unique on two counts (as you say) or aspects. But more unique does not make logical sense to me, because, in order to be more unique, something would need to be further along a scale of uniqueness than some other thing. And Jim isn't. He is as far in the scale as Fred. He happens to be unique on an additional scale too. I am unable to find logic there. – CesarGon Feb 09 '11 at 07:50
  • @CesarGon: And isn't "doubly unique" (your words) more unique than "singly unique"? You're entitled to disagree, of course, and it's hardly important in any case - but if I said someone was "more talented" than someone else, that could either mean that they are more highly skilled in a single field, or equally skilled, but in a larger number of fields... – psmears Feb 09 '11 at 09:50
  • @psmears: I agree that disagreeing about this is hardly important. :-) To answer your question, no, I wouldn't say Alice is more talented than Bob if she is as talented as him in twice as many fields. See, English is not my first language (not even second), and I admit that this might be causing some weird effect with my interpretation of what words mean. – CesarGon Feb 09 '11 at 17:01
4

I think the biggest difference is whether you're emphasizing the positive or the negative. "More perfect" is a positive phrase implying "Good and getting better", whereas "Less Imperfect" is more negative, implying, "Still bad, but not as bad." Perfect is hardly ever used except as hyperbole, so it seems valid to allow for degrees.

Satanicpuppy
  • 824
  • 1
  • 7
  • 12
  • I want to give this answer support, because when normal humans communicate, very seldom does "perfect" really refer to something truly perfect. For that matter, in real life, very little can be truly perfect. So often someone says "oh, yes, that would be perfect!" until you give another alternative, and they say "right, that would be even better!" So how was the first thing perfect? Clearly, in real life, with real people, using real English, there can be such a thing as "more perfect". – John Y Dec 29 '10 at 03:20
  • I think this answer explains "more perfect" as commonly used: it means nearer to perfection. it doesn't mean better than ultimate perfection, which is a concept that cannot really be reached anyway. – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Jan 06 '11 at 15:37
0

Perfect is a binary condition, and imperfect simply means "not perfect." Therefore the phrase "more perfect" denotes that the difference between perfection and the state in question is smaller (i.e. it has fewer flaws) than the previous state. This logic also applies to the construction "more certain." A condition is certain if it has probability unity of occurring, and uncertain if it does not. A more certain event has probability closer to unity.

0

"More perfect", "less unique", "less imperfect"; these words grate on the ear. The trouble is is that if common use of language hijacks words like unique then there is nothing to replace them.

One can argue they aren't necessarily always wrong, but they certainly don't sound good. Just use something else more appropriate. For example, if you really feel like using the description "less imperfect", why not just state that the thing has fewer imperfections (as you've already flirted with)?

Mike G
  • 314
-1

I don't think you should say "less imperfect." It's like saying "I'm less average than you." It's up there with "less unique." Imperfect, average, unique, perfect are all "boolean," or so to say. They are either true or false; yes or no; You can be imperfect, or you can be perfect. You cannot be "less unique" or "more average" either. maybe that helps.... :)

kalaracey
  • 330
  • if you're going to rate down my comment, couldn't you at least give a bit of criticism? Perhaps my answer wasn't great, but I would gain from knowing what's wrong with it. – kalaracey Dec 30 '10 at 20:45
  • I think the overall sentiment here, and specifically the statement “You cannot be ‘less unique’ or ‘more average’ either” is false or at least misleading. – nohat Dec 31 '10 at 06:16