That was a long way to go to get to a Ficciones reference. The Pierre Menard's Don Quixote and the Library of Babel are probably my favorite Borges stories, and I do think they're applicable to the author's point. I just can't help but feel that it was a painful process to get there.
Reminds me a little of Roald Dahl's short story "The Great Automatic Grammatizator", which is an excellent read (not quite as dark as some of his fiction, but getting there).
Wrong is a binary state, you're wrong or not, both statements are equally wrong. What you're looking for is the term "Farther from the truth" Saying a tomato is a vegetable is closer to the truth (or closer to correct) than to say it is a suspension bridge. However both are completely and unequivocally wrong as wrong is a binary state.
Unfortunately, you're wrong. "Wrong" is a binary state only in abstract Logic.
When it comes to human languages the use of such words in a comparative manner is a common and accepted occurrence, from ancient times even. It's also a phenomenon (along with numerous others mistakenly thought as "wrong") that has been heavily studied by linguists and considered an example of a valid use of language as it evolves (as opposed to a syntactical or spelling error that comes from ignorance or from a lapse of concentration).
Do you have any references or studies that you could point me to? I'd love to read about the studies that have been done. Logic vs language is a really interesting topic since it basically means the integration of your expert skill set (how much you use logic and logical constructs) will inform your understanding of language. I wonder if that definition of wrong that linguists have found will change if our society shifts more towards a logic based outlook, or more jobs that work with binary state.
I often nod when people are speaking to me...not because I realize they're making a point I agree with...rather it's to keep from obstructing the point they're trying to make..
Point: Don't let a small human mistake distract you from an opportunity to learn something...
Why don't people study some linguistics or at least consult a dictionary when they try to give language advice to others?
>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.
Linguists merely observe what happens in the wild, the way an anthropologist does. And like an anthropologist -- a good anthropologist -- they ought to set aside all notions of better or worse. It's not for an anthropologist to rank putting a bone through one's nose against putting a man on the moon and to judge whether one is better than the other. In the same vein, neither is it right for a linguist to say whether "more unique," etc. is right or wrong. So, you see, regarding usage, linguists are of no help in matters of taste.
I would suggest you consult a quality reference on the English language, such as "Garner's Modern American Usage." There, you would read that these casual uses of unique ought to be avoided. I'm sorry, but you won't find "Garner's" online for free, so I can't link to it. Consult your local library, while there still are some.
>In the same vein, neither is it right for a linguist to say whether "more unique," etc. is right or wrong. So, you see, regarding usage, linguists are of no help in matters of taste.
Linguistics studies language and its use, and linguists can and do, determine things that are part of the normal course of the evolution of language (and have happened again and again) and convey specific meanings from plain errors. Linguists often come and dispell common language myths (unscientific ideas about language) like the one we're talking about (and also changes in meaning, like "literally" becoming a stronger "virtually").
It's actually "matters of taste" that are of no importance to determine whether "more unique" is wrong. Taste is taste.
What we're arguing about here is "prescriptive" versus "descriptive." Linguistics is the second of the two. Scientific data says nothing about right or wrong. It simply says what "people" do; it doesn't tell us what to do.
As to taste, or prescriptive rules of language, what we're talking about is the use of language by educated people who make a point of expressing themselves clearly and elegantly. These are not "unscientific" ideas about language but, instead, simply non-scientific. Science here has no place.
You may say "taste is taste," and that's true. You're free to speak and write anyway you choose. And if something is a'ight with you, have fun with it. Your peeps should have no trouble understanding you. My original point takes place in the context of criticizing someone who is writing in a public forum about writing.
A thing can be unique in some respects but not others. To express a comparison between something having more unique qualities than another as 'more unique' seems appropriate.
Prior to the sentence in question, he writes this:
> Beyond merely detecting clichés, the program could also offer statistically unique replacements for each cliché [...]
I missed that the first time around. I don't like "statistically unique" either, and for the same reason. What I think he means is "statistically improbable." A cliché is a cliché because it's overused. So, computerized editing would want to replace overly common phrases with less common ones: hence, "statistically improbable."
I would recommend he re-write that sentence, and then re-write the other to jibe with the first. Strictly speaking, I don't think he should use unique in either place.
