localized entirely within your kitchen?!
It’s right there in this thread, which is why I quoted it verbatim for you. Anyhow, I’m glad to hear the rest of the sentence.
It must be a result of some BBC style guide, but wording like “The estate insisted that he pays…” [when what is meant is “The estate insisted that he pay…”] interrupt the flow of reading while I make sure I have understood the sentence correctly.
Isn’t this just about how the subjunctive has been slowly disappearing in English over the last millennium?
(For a real-time example of this change, my kid finds “if I was a rich man” more natural than “if I were…”).
I assume so. I doubt BBC journalists use broken English. It is subtle, but (IMHO) correct use of the subjunctive sometimes makes things clearer.
If that were true, it would make me sad.
Break out the Kleenex, then! 
In your sentence, I believe “were” has been replaced by “was” in UK English. Or at least the UK speakers I know and the books I’ve read seem to have the “if I were” subjunctive deprecated. Is this impression incorrect?
They still say “God save the King”, though… or do they?
Good point! That’s a fixed, “frozen” phrase, though.
I always thought it was an imperative there, like “God, take care of the king.” So I assume it’s not?
I just don’t think you can back that up with evidence. The “rules of language” are either observational, like “rules of physics,” or prescriptive, like “rules of etiquette.” Neither set is really intended to facilitate communication: the first set isn’t intended to do anything, and the second set is just as often intended to defend class structure. And while the etiquette-adjacent rules do follow some logic, the logic is very often predicated on faulty premises, e.g., that double negatives work in language the way they work in formal logic.
The underlying motivator for linguistic patterns is efficacy. Does a given construction satisfy the aims of the speaker? Those aims are mostly communication, but they also usually include an emotional effect. The speaker intends to make the audience feel pleased, or humiliated, or accepting, or something else. Logic isn’t generally one of the goals, except in highly specific domains (just as, in other highly specific domains, enabling the creation of deep-fat-fried pastries is one of the aims).
It’s fun to pretend that linguistic patterns are rooted in logic, but holding onto that idea despite the evidence is a superstition.
I was just thinking the same. Imperative and subjunctive often overlap and partly share forms and histories, e.g. in Latin and Spanish — and I assume English, too.
For that phrase, though, I think it’s more “MAY God save the king”, or “I HOPE God saves the king.” More subjunctive than imperative.
As an imperative, it would basically mean: “Hey, God, save our king…or else!” Or else what? Whattaya gonna do? It’s God!
(By the way, “save” here means “keep healthy,” I’m pretty sure — its older meaning. As a kid, this confused me. I pictured the king or queen perpetually near-drowning in the ocean.)
I would describe this as “a thing”. The only scenario I can imagine where I’d need more than that would be something like:
A: Look at this object. It’s one of a kind!
B: But look over there, I see many others of exactly that same kind.
A: Ah, I stand corrected. Looks like it’s just one of many.
These are the only phrases needed to express this meaning, and it’s not a meaning I’d need to express very often. There’s no value added with an extra phrase like “one of a kind of which there are many examples” that couldn’t be expressed just with “one of many”, with “of that kind” being the unspoken assumption.
But in either case I wouldn’t confuse that with “one of a kind” which always means “the only one of its kind”.
You may be misreading my comment as I’m not really trying to say anything profound here. The evidence is just simply the fact that basic and essential rules of grammar exist, that they broadly follow more-or-less cohesive logical principles, and that they have to be learned in order for us to be able to communicate. There’s logic to the way we form sentences. There’s (some) logic to the etymology of what words mean and how we form their variants. Notwithstanding our natural “language instict”, those rules are arbitrary and different in different languages and the better we know them and follow them the clearer our communication generally is. Those rules have to be taught, whether it’s to children or whether it’s adults in an ESL class.
I don’t think those self-evident facts make me some sort of crusading prescriptivist. In any case we come from very different places on this subject. I’m a technologist acclimatized to disciplined and precise language; you I think are more a humanist interested in observing the organic evolution (or devolution) of language and readily accepting of whatever happens. Neither position is right or wrong in itself, but about as different as can be.
The way I see it, something can be unique for one reason, while a similar item could be unique for similar and also other reasons. For example, there could be a type of cupcake that’s unique because it’s the only one made with a very specific type of Guatemalan chocolate, while another type is unique because it’s the only one made with a specific type of vanilla. But the second type is also unique because it’s frosted by having a hole cut out and the inside frosted. You could say that, compared to first, the second is “very unique.”
Excellently put, I think.
Kind of reminds me of people who say “moot point” when it should be “moot point.” You can see how the confusion occurs, but the original is much better.
Yes. I just learned yesterday that “just deserts” is the “correct” form…it’s not originally about the after-meal cake or jello you deserve, though now most of us interpret it that way (I’m pretty sure), so on some sense that has become a “correct” interpretation (and spelling).
(“Desert” here is some old word for reward or punishment, not like the Sahara.)