Because “once-in-a-lifetime” and “now-and-then” are both descriptive phrases used to describe a vague span of time, but of differing durations; and they’re used in the same sentence to describe the same event. So to rework the newscaster’s sentence in non-metaphorical, straightforward language, it would be: “Every 5 years, something happens that happens only once every 50 years”.
I see you’re just as bad at math as you are at vocabulary.
Obviously not. Guess I’ll quit trying to provide them.
Unique is widely used to mean highly unusual or extraordinary, but even going by the more formal definition things can be unique in more ways than others. More unique could conceivably be used to mean unique in more aspects, as in my example where if there is only one penny it is unique in that it is the only penny, but if there is only one coin and it is a penny, that same penny is unique in more aspects of its being.
As for almost never, I know it is an incorrect usage, and that the whole point of the word never is, well, never. But often the word never is used to mean very, very, very seldom. I guess people should just get used to repeating the word “very”, but then that could get annoying too.
I still don’t see the problem with once-in-a-lifetime.
I STILL don’t see the problem. “Every 5 years, something happens that happens only once every 50 years.” Yes. So?
Let’s say there are 10 comets, each one a different color. Each one passes near earth at 50 year intervals. Blue comet passes earth in 2000, red comet passes earth in 2005, green comet in 2010, and so on. Every 5 years something happens that only happens once every 50 years. Every 5 years you have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. In 2005 if you miss the red comet you’ll never see it, in 2010 if you miss the green comet you’ll never see it.
I don’t necessarilly believe there is any irony in the phrase “I put my foot in my mouth… literally.” Where is the irony? Just because something is not expected does not make it irony. However, I could be wrong.
I do understand lissener’s amazement at your position. You agree that the phrase is ironic, but the word “literally” is not being used ironically? 
You aren’t making any sense. If the phrase is ironic, then the word is helping to constitute that irony, or at the very least it pertains to that irony (yes, if you had looked it up, you would know ironically simply means pertaining to irony). You could argue that the phrase itself is not ironic, but your current position is absurd.
Umm…I quite disagree with the adage that “almost never” is an incorrect construction. Nor do I understand the logic behind why it’s wrong. Go to google and do a search on “almost never” and “grammar.” I went through a couple pages and this phrase is on grammar tests (cited as a correct answer), on explanations of grammar, etc. I couldn’t find any prescription against it.
To argue that you cannot qualify an absolute in this manner strikes me as odd. What wrong with saying something is “almost perfect,” or something “almost never” happens? There’s no logical incongruity their. It’s not problematic in the sense “very” or “most unique” would be. Though I disagree with the prescriptions against the latter, at least I can see WHY they can be construed as incorrect.
As for the reason that “seldom” and “rarely” exist in the language to describe the concept of “almost never.” Well, yeah, so what? Are we gonna strike out every redundant word or phrase in English? You’d probably ex out two-thirds of the dictionary that way. Part of the beauty of this language is that there are so many ways to express the same concept, each with its own connotational and dictional nuances.
And jsc, OK, I’ll agree that there may be some sloppy phrasing involved there, but you cannot mathematically equate the two statements as you have. As you yourself have stated, “once-in-a-lifetime” and “every now and then” are vague statements of time. I’d argue you CAN have more than one once-in-a-lifetime athlete, for two reasons. One is that “once-in-a-lifetime” is NOT a phrase that I think most people take literally. It’s a synonym for “extraordinary.” YMMV, but I’ve never parsed the words literally, anymore than I think a “son of a bitch” is the offspring of a cockerspaniel or poodle. “Son of a bitch” = “disagreeable person”. “Once in a lifetime” = “extraordinary.”
Secondly, I’d argue that you can have more than one once-in-a-lifetime athletes. The argument follows the argument about “unique” previously posted. Athletes have differing skills and two athletes with amazing skills in different areas would constitute “once in a lifetime” athletes for me.
I can exclusively reveal that the word ‘exclusive’ has lost any meaning it once had. It means nothing.
When I say ‘exclusively’ I mean that you will not find me saying this anywhere else at this particular time. This exclusive is exclusively the propery of the SDMB.
I intend to exclusively reveal this exclusive to friends in conversation later today. They will exclusively hear this over an exclusive cup of tea. You can be sure that this will be a particularly exculsive exclusive, as I will be the only one drinking from that cup and they will be the only ones listening.
The fact that I’ve revealed this exclusively to both the SDMB and friends does not impact on the exclusivity of each exclusive. This is because the word “exculsive” as it is increasingly mis and over used means nothing.
FG- Maybe it’s a British thing. Unless I’m misunderstanding, I’ve only heard the word exclusive in the sense of “excluding everyone else.” As in “exclusive club for millionaires” or “exclusive story for People magazine.” Plus I use it in my contracts when I license non-exclusive vs. exclusive rights to a photograph.
Do people really say an “exclusive cup of tea” and “exclusively listening?” Or am I just completely missing out on this phenomenon?
Has anyone added “flat-out”? There’s a stunning number of alleged sports commentators who use this to describe some athlete’s attributes: “He can flat-out run.” “He’s flat-out the best pitcher in the universe.”
Oh, and “obviously” is overused too - at least by those same sports dudes. Hey, if it was obvious, you wouldn’t need to say it, chump! And if it’s not obvious… 
You’re misunderstanding. It’s a media hyperbole:TV, Radio, Papers. No-one talks about an exclusive cup of tea, I was just emphasising how ridiculous it would all be if everyone used the word in a similar way.
Redundancy is the enemy!
So where does ‘meet with’ come from? ‘I’m going to meet with Bill this afternoon.’ What’s wrong with ‘meet Bill’?
Nothing gets my goat more than someone trying to sound smart by saying irregardless. The world is regardless! Putting the prefix ir and suffix less in the same word is illogical. My stupid brother in law always acts like he is smarter than my wife, who in my humble opinion is one smart cookie, then betrays his stupidity by using that term… all the freaking time! Even when it has nothing to do with what he is saying! He’ll just begin a sentence with irregardless.
“Did you see the game last night?”
“Irregardless of that I went for a jog today”
“What?”
“A jog, well irregarless of that I had an apple today.”
“Do you have any idea of how stupid you sound”
“Irregarless, you are an idiot.”
AARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
I don’t have a real problem with this. “Meet with” means “to have a meeting with”. “Meet” more commonly means “to be introduced to”.
But I’ll go to my grave defending my position that you can’t have a once-in-a-lifetime event every now-and-then.
Now, death: there’s a once-in-a-lifetime event! For most of us, anyway.
Well, I suppose I can back off my position regarding “almost never” and acknowledge that while I find this particular construction annoying, it is not necessarily incorrect. However, do note that my position was not that “almost never” is ungrammatical (an incorrect construction) but rather pointless (in actual meaning or usage), to my way of thinking.
But, Nightime, I stick by my guns on “unique”. Granted, a thing may have more than one aspect in which it is one-of-a-kind. But things with multiple one-of-a-kind aspects are not “more unique” than those with just one such aspect; multiple one-of-a-kind aspects offer no common basis for comparison because they are one-of-a-kind. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
Or to give a more concrete example, consider the Great Wall of China. I can easily name two unique features about this wall: it is the longest man-made wall on Earth; it is the only man-made object which can be seen from space/orbit.
Now, let’s consider, oh, say, the CN Tower in Toronto. Its unique feature is that it is (or was, at one time) the tallest free-standing structure in the world.
Which is “more unique”: the Great Wall of China or the CN Tower?
Before you jump in saying “Aha! Jerevan proved my case for me!” let me add a few more unique features to the list for each object.
Wall: longest wall in China, longest wall in Asia, longest wall north of the Equator, longest wall in the Eastern Hemisphere…
Do these make the Great Wall “more unique” than it was a few seconds ago?
Tower: tallest free-standing structure in Canada, and in North America, and in the Western Hemisphere, and north of the Equator, and on the shores of the Great Lakes…
Do these make the CN Tower “more unique”?
My point is that when a thing has a one-of-a-kind feature, one can easily – obviously – find many, many contexts in which that feature is one-of-a-kind. That being so, the idea of a thing being “more unique” because of that feature, whether in its own right or compared to something else, becomes ludicrous.
As for the debate about irony: I think the Anti-Lissener Opposition Party’s view is that while the word “literally” does, with proper inflection and timing, render the use of the cliche/idiom (“I put my foot in my mouth”) ironic, the word “literally” is not itself being used in an ironic way. Why? Because the word “literally” is being used… well, literally. If it were being used ironically, then lissener would be using to mean “figuratively” or “metaphorically”. The result would then be:
Said: “I put my foot in my mouth… literally.”
Meant: “I put my foot in my mouth… figuratively.”
which is ironic but not funny. In fact, it’s redundant because the cliche/idiom is generally used in a figurative or metaphorical sense anyway.
Thus, in order for the use of the cliche to be ironic, the word “literally” must be meant/taken in a non-ironic way.
lissener’s position is, of course, much like Nightime’s: the statement uses the word “literally” to achieve an ironic meaning; therefore this can be construed as an ironic usage of the word “literally”. One might say that the tool of humor is made of iron.
I can see the merits of both arguments, but personally I have to cast my vote with the Loyal Opposition, lissener; sorry. The ironic humor of the statement depends on “literally” to be taken literally, which is not an ironic usage of the word itself.
But for what’s it worth, I think the debate has ruined a good joke.
As an Englishman in the US, I have a tough time dealing with a few language issues, and I don’t even know if they’re considered incorrect in these parts.
Apple : Think Different.
…erm, shouldn’t that be thing differently? or do you mean Think “different” - that might make sense.
also
“I did really good on the test today. I test really good.”
…you did WELL on the test did you?
I’m your waitress, I’ll be with you momentarily"
…what you’re saying is that you’ll only be with me for a moment? Why can’t you spare a little longer? I will tip you as expected!
And the bizarre illogic continues.
In order for the “joke” to be “funny,” the word “literally” must be taken ironically: to take it literally simply makes no sense.
Try to follow here: If it were meant literally, there would be a literal foot in a literal mouth. Used ironically, it merely forces that image into one’s mind for a moment. To suggest that, in the quote “I put my foot in my mouth. Literally.” the word “literally” can in any POSSIBLE way be used literally, is, in the absence of bonesaw and a lot of lube, ludicrous.
It can only be used mistakenly or ironically.
How can this be so difficult?
Well, I’ll try to tell you (without rancor). It’s because of your insistence that if a claim is made that is not meant to persuade the listener (or lissener) of its factual truth, but merely to convey an image, then the claim itself is ironic. That insistence is, I beleive, faulty.
“I just flew in from Vegas, and boy are my arms tired!”
Now, are we meant to believe that the speaker actually flapped his way to us from Las Vegas? If not, are we meant to believe he means “and my arms aren’t tired at all, because I merely sat in a plane all the way”? Answers: No and No. The humor comes from the literal intention of the speaker’s claim that his arms are tired, which amusingly jars our immediate assumption from the first clause of the sentence. We are not expected to find the statement plausible, but we are expected to create the mental image of the speaker “flying” like a bird. We create that image because we understand the lack of ironic intent.
Clear yet?
IMHO, the most overused word in the English language is “cute”.
I do think it’s a bit pedantic to insist that “unique” is beyond modification. I think it’s acceptable to say that something is “almost” or “nearly” or “practically” unique, the same way something can be incompletely extinct, or mandatory, or universal.
Or, for that matter, you can mean a statement “almost literally.”
About the only state that I can think of that is inherently absolute is, just like the old joke, pregnancy. No diminishing modifiers seem applicable… though I have seen women who I’d say were “extremely” pregnant.
Given the extent of misuse, I’d also consider it acceptable to describe something as “truly” or “completely unique.” Arguably those are redundancies, but such is the state of things that it might be necessary to indicate that you really mean it.
I’d say all-in-all, that most of these misuses are more comical than annoying to me when I encounter them. All except the misused quotation marks. The creeping prevalence of “those” in signs and print advertising seems to carry the threat of their general acceptance as a mere intensifier.
I agree that you can’t have the same once-in-a-lifetime event multiple times, but clearly you can have multiple different once-in-a-lifetime events. You can only be born once, and you can only die once. That’s two once-in-a-lifetime events right there.
I agree that your example does not make sense. But just because you have come up with an example of “more unique” not making sense does not mean it never makes sense. What if a meteor hit the earth and the only man made object that remained was the great wall of china? Wouldn’t it make sense, even if not grammatically correct, to say that the great wall of china would then be more unique? It isn’t comparing apples and oranges, it is comparing an apple at one point with an apple at a different point.
Actually this is not at all my position. My position is that the statement is not ironic in the first place, but IF you believe the statement to be ironic, then you must also agree that literally is being used ironically.
Exactly. The claim itself is not ironic. If it was, then literally would be used ironically. But it isn’t.
My thanks to Number six. I like to use English well, and the ‘responsible’ / ‘accountable’ distinction is one I had previously failed to make. Excellent!
Most of my own favourite examples have been mentioned already, but I’d like to nominate “as soon as possible”. Perhaps there was once a time when this phrase was used correctly, and really meant something. It seems to me, however, that these days - especially in office and business environments - people ask for virtually everything to be done asap, and others undertake to get things done asap, but the phrase is essentially meaningless.
9 times out of 10, someone undertaking to do something asap just means “Get off my case, I’ll get around to it some time or other, when it damn well suits me”.
Secret.
I think the magazine publishing industry is severely twisting the meaning of this word. Their definition of “secret” is more like “hint” than “a piece of information that is to be kept confidential”. As seen in “32 secrets to a happy sex life”, or “12 makeup secrets of the stars!”