It never occured to me that the meaning of uniform is basically everyone dressed the same.
So if there was an army of one, he/she could not posibly wear a uniform. Or am I just being pedantic.
But, if the person is dressed the same as him/herself then it is a uniform. So we’re all wearing uniforms?
Yeah, it always annoys me when superheroes call their outfits a uniform. It isn’t, it’s a costume. (Except for the Green Lantern Corps, perhaps, and even then each member wears his own variant)
I’m going with the meaning of 1 outfit for a group of individuals. Uni- meaning one, and form meaning a standard. Not Uni- meaning yourself compared to many.
You’re thinking too hard man, you’re brain is going to hurt.
I think it’s a “uniform” if:
So whether you and four others are wearing polos and Dockers to rent movies to people, or Murray down at the garage always wears his jumpsuit to work on cars, you’re in your respective uniforms.
:smack: :smack: :smack: I hate myself right now…
I know better.
I really know better.
Could an ensemble be called a uniform if all the pieces were of a similar theme, i.e. the pants and shirt and hat were of a matching pattern or colour?
When it comes to superheroes, though, I think I’ve seen “costume” used more often than “uniform”.
Wear the same outfit day afte day after day and that is YOUR Uniform!
OK, hypothetical situation. I own my company, I am the only employee, I drive a company truck and visit homes to exterminate pests. I wear white pants with a blue stripe down the side and a blue belt, and a white shirt with blue epaulets, and the company logo on the pocket. I wear a white cap with the company logo. Same outfit every day. Today one of my customers said, “Isn’t that a dead cockroach on your uniform?”
Would he be wrong to say “uniform”? Seems like a meaningless technicality to me. I think a uniform is anything identical outfit that a group of people wear or any outift that appears to be a uniform, which leaves room for interpretation, but then again, this is English.
CookingWithGas, that meets my #2 definition above, so yep, sounds like a uniform to me!
You guys are all trying too hard:
I suppose someone’s going to argue the fact that there’s a plural in that sentence (or a couple), but seriously. I suppose that same wag will also argue that one could change it every day and still call it a uniform (it is official after all), but seriously.
Doesn’t the IRS have a legal definition of uniform? What I mean is, IIRC, the purchase and cleaning of a work uniform is a tax deduction. Regular clothes aren’t. Does anyone know what the IRS definition is. Would Murray at the garage qualify? Would the exterminator qualify?
Years ago I sold real estate. We had a “company blazer” that was specific in color/style and had a company logo on it. According to my accountant, the coat was a “uniform” and could be deducted. Any other clothes that I wore weren’t deductible.
So, what does the IRS use as a litmus test?
Didn’t civil war officers commision tailors to make their "uniforms? At least in the south. Grant’s and Lees “uniform” seem to be anything but.
In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith had a special 1840s-style uniform made up for himself, complete with epaulets, piping, brass buttons, etc., as the Commander-in-Chief of Mormondom. His outfit was named the Nauvoo Legion.
Or consider back 50 years ago, when there was one survivor left of the Grand Army of the Republic – the Union army during the War Between the States. Did the uniform he’d proudly worn for over 80 years suddenly stop being a uniform when he was the only man left eligible to wear it?
The members of the College of Heralds in the U.K. have official garb that is picturesque to say the least, which is worn only on certain extremely high occasions like a coronation. But the interesting thing about this is, while each of them wears a tabard of approximately the same design, each is the bearer of a particular title relative to his work at the College, and his garb reflects that distinct title. Would you consider this as resembling a military uniform with distinctions by rank and command marked out by distinctives modifying the uniform? (BTW, there’s another oddity: Nobody else is entitled to wear the exact same uniform as the Sergeant Major of the Army. And for about ten years General of the Army Omar Bradley was the only man entitled to wear a uniform with the pentagon-of-stars emblem.)
That’s a rank designation and certainly we can allow that to be excepted from being on everyone’s epaulets (or collar or whatever). One might as well argue that since the camoflauge patterns don’t match between outfits that they’re not uniform.
That’s just silly. The uiniform was worn by thousands of men. Just because it was outdated and replaced by another uniform does not make it any less a uniform.
There is a difference between that and a costume that was only made for one person, and only ever worn by that person.
IIRC, any specific clothing that you are required to wear for work that cannot be worn as everyday clothing counts as a uniform for the IRS. I remember reading that Liberace claimed his outfits as a uniform, because he couldn’t go out in public wearing them except when he was performing.
IANAL and all that rot.
I would also say that a “uniform” I wore once would be one if people recognised it so – because while not identical, it obviously shared enough with other uniforms to identify me as “wearing a uniform” which is the point.
