“being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else”
The second restaurant you mentioned – presuming you do mean human infants and aren’t simply being facetious and referring to the fact we actually eat babies all the time – can be said to be unique. The first restaurant is not unique, it is simply “the only Native-America-food restaurant in town” – that isn’t unique.
There are no degrees of uniqueness same as there are no degrees of “deadness” or degrees of “pregnantness”.
Someone is either dead or alive, someone is either pregnant or not, something is either unique or it isn’t.
Yes. I know someone who insists you can’t have a “first annual” event - the first one is supposed to be the “inaugural” event. Except that "inaugural means first of a projected series and doesn’t imply that it will be an annual event- it could be a monthly event (referring to the “inaugural issue” of a magazine doesn’t tell you anything about the publication frequency). “First annual” , “first weekly” or “first monthly” are the only ways to communicate both that it’s the first event and the frequency of the event - unless you want to go to “inaugural annual” , which sounds very strange to my ear…
No, but “unique” exists within a certain scope. Something doesn’t have to be absolutely the only one of its kind in the universe to be unique, just the only one within a given setting. The Native American restaurant may be unique among restaurants in its geographical area in that it’s the only one serving such cuisine. It’s unique to the area.
Not sure if this has been mentioned but if I hear one more person say the chances are slim and none, I’m going to go completely bonkers.
I knew someone whose favorite idiom was: “You’ve got two chances. Slim and f*** all”. He would make use of this turn of phrase at any opportunity. This caught on among our particular group, and then got shortened to just “You’ve got two chances”.
“I wonder whether my team will win the league this year?” “I’d say they have two chances”.
Does it make sense, really? No. Do I like it anyway? Yes. Will I stop saying it? Two chances of that happening.
(Do I ask questions, and then answer them myself? Yes.)
Technically, yeah. But if more people are using it as a synonym for “huge” than for “horribleness”, then how long is it before the “mistakes” become the “definitions”?
greatness of size, scope, extent, or influence; immensity: The enormity of such an act of generosity is staggering.
Usage note
3. Enormity has been in frequent and continuous use in the sense “immensity” since the 18th century: The enormity of the task was overwhelming.Some hold that enormousness is the correct word in that sense and that enormity can only mean “outrageousness” or “atrociousness”: The enormity of his offenses appalled the public. Enormity occurs regularly in edited writing with the meanings both of great size and of outrageous or horrifying character, behavior, etc. Many people, however, continue to regard enormity in the sense of great size as nonstandard.
Granted that there may be higher authorities on the subject, but the following is how the AP Stylebook discusses it.
“An event cannot be described as annual until it has been held in at least two successive years. Do not use the term first annual. Instead, note that sponsors plan to hold an event annually.”
AP suggests that you use ‘inaugural’ in place of ‘first annual’.
The only time you can use ‘first annual’ correctly, is if you are referring to the event after additional annual events have taken place. Then it can properly distinguish between, say, the third or fourth annual and the first annual event.
Lately, I have been hearing 2 that I never used to and I wonder if they are regional:
“whenever” and “might could have.”
As in, “whenever my only daughter was born, I might could have fit into my old clothes within a week.”
Since when do we use “whenever” to describe something that happened exactly once?
What the heck is “might could have?”
I’m sure that the AP stylebook says exactly that- but a stylebook is not a authoritative source for grammar or usage. It simply explains a particular style which is used by one or more publications for articles (not paid advertisements) and many of the issues are just that- issues of style which may differ from publication to publication.* AP style is used by many newspapers but it is not used by every newspaper - the NYT, for example , has its own which differs from AP style. (A somewhat noticeable difference is that most newspapers will refer to someone by their full name on first reference and the last name on second reference. The NYT does not- outside the sports section, the second reference includes a courtesy title).
“First inaugural” is certainly not AP style - but advertising needn’t follow AP style.Especially flyers - and that’s usually where I see “first inaugural”.
I’ve had to use more than one style guide in my life. They were all different, but to the best of my recollection, one thing they had in common was that they assumed the writer knew the basic grammar and usage that would be common to all writing.
I’m sure that the AP stylebook says exactly that- but a stylebook is not a authoritative source for grammar or usage. It simply explains a particular style which is used by one or more publications for articles (not paid advertisements) and many of the issues are just that- issues of style which may differ from publication to publication.* AP style is used by many newspapers but it is not used by every newspaper - the NYT, for example , has its own which differs from AP style. (A somewhat noticeable difference is that most newspapers will refer to someone by their full name on first reference and the last name on second reference. The NYT does not- outside the sports section, the second reference includes a courtesy title).
“First inaugural” is certainly not AP style - but advertising needn’t follow AP style.Especially flyers - and that’s usually where I see “first inaugural”.
One small correction to the above. The AP folks weren’t advocating using first inaugural instead of first annual, they were suggesting the use of inaugural alone. If I made that unclear in my posting, I apologize.
As I noted at the beginning of my post, there may well be more authoritative texts on English grammar and usage than the AP book. And perhaps they do applaud the use of 'first annual". But I still don’t agree with it and won’t use it. I consider it presumptive and smacking of hubris to make the assumption that any first-time event will automatically be the first of many.
“First inaugural” is certainly not AP style - but advertising needn’t follow AP style.Especially flyers - and that’s usually where I see “first inaugural”.
One small correction to the above. The AP folks weren’t advocating using first inaugural instead of first annual, they were suggesting the use of inaugural alone. If I made that unclear in my posting, I apologize.
[/QUOTE]
Not you- I made the same mistake twice. It should have been
But the AP stylebook isn’t suggesting or advocating anything, actually. It’s simply their style and following their style requires not using “first annual”.Other styles don’t require avoiding that phrase. Just like it’s AP style to use “4 out of 5” while other styles require “four out of five”-neither one is correct or incorrect outside the context of the style being used. The suggestion for those following AP style to “note that sponsors plan to hold the event annually” works fine in an article but not so well in an ad.
[QUOTE=stillownedbysetters]
I consider it presumptive and smacking of hubris to make the assumption that any first-time event will automatically be the first of many.
[/quote]
I’m kind of wondering what events you see referred to as “first annual” that it seems presumptuous to you. I usually see it in things like “First annual name of park 5K” or “First annual volunteer appreciation dinner”. That doesn’t smack of any hubris to me- and even by the AP stylebook, you can refer to the “first annual” after it’s been held twice (which is hardly many).
On a related note- it always seems to be “first annual” that people object to. I have never seen anyone object to a notice about the “first monthly meeting of the newly formed civic association” or “the first weekly meeting of the TPS workgroup is scheduled for 4/17/15”. It’s the same usage.