"Same exact" makes no sense. It should be "exact same".

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

“Exact” modifies “same”, not vice versa. You can tell a modifier, because you can remove it from the sentence without affecting the basic meaning. Since modifiers precede the thing they modify in English (OK, with a few exceptions such as attorney general), it should be “exact same”.

Jane: I just bought a new lawnmower, a GrassKing LM22.
Bob: Hey, I have the exact same lawnmower!

If we drop the modifier, it means roughly the same thing: Hey, I have the same lawnmower!

vs.

Bob: Hey, I have the same exact lawnmower!
-> Hey, I have the exact lawnmower! - huh? Exact in what way?

2

And that’s why most people I know use exact same instead of same exact.

That said, there’s really no reason that one is better than the other. If you refer to a “big blue house,” you can remove “blue” and it will still make sense. The problem here is that exact is functioning as an adverb, describing how “the same” the item is.

And, as an adverb, it can be placed either before or after the word it modifies.

3

Meh. If we’re going to be really piddly, I’d say that exact same is unnecessary as same does all the work. Exact is just hanging on like a groupie. Or is there a difference in meaning between two lawnmowers that are exactly the same and two that are just the same?

4

Well… Same can be same in any level of a hierarchy. Birds are the same as turtles (both animals!). Or things can be the same in every respect except uniqueness (both are Eastern Island Painted Turtles or conventional twins). Or they can actually have the same identity (transporter or time travel twin).

5

An adverb modifies a verb. I don’t really see that “exact” is modifying “have” in this case. And the adverbial form would be “exactly” rather than “exact”. Of course, informally people often use adjectives as adverbs, but again if we try a substitution test we get a weird sentence: “I have the same exactly lawnmower.” So I don’t buy the adverb idea.

This is a grammar thing rather than sematic, so the matter of whether “exact same” means something more than “same” is a different question.

6

I agree. It’s not an adverb (the verb is ‘to have’ so the only way an adverb could appear is: “I exactly have the same lawnmower” which is nonsense), it’s an adjective used as an adjective modifier.

It’s not just the same lawnmower, it’s “exactly” the same - same model, color, etc. Which is of course hyperbole. If you were in Thailand you could say the lawnmower was same same but different.

7

Um…no…an adverb modifies a verb, adjective or other adverb. Also, I agree that exact feels redundant, but people seem to have a need to intensify words by adding on extra decoration. See also “very unique,” which I find far more painful. :slight_smile:

8

**jackdavinvci **nailed it. In common speech, “same” means pretty-similar-to. “Exact same” means all-but-identical to.

Two people who shop at the same brand of grocery store but different locations would probably say they shop at the “same” store, but not the “exact same” store.

Two Nissan Sentra’s are the same car. But unless they’re the identical model year, body style, and trim level they’re not the exact same car.

9

Very unique has its place, if you consider two objects that are made up of parts, one object that has a previously unused combination can be said to be “unique.” However, if it is still similar to another, common, object, while it’s unique it shares some characteristics. Consider, now, and object that serves the same function but is vastly different in composition (different parts), we could call an object like that “very unique” in comparison to the “slightly unique” object 1, since object 2 has more unique parts and composition to fulfill its intended function than object 1.

Say you have some sort of Degnoming object, it has three parts, A,B,C. Now I come up with my own, unique, Degnoming utensil, having parts A,B,D, pretty much the same function, unique composition. Now you make your own Degnoming utensil, to shame mine and the commercial one, it uses parts X,Y,Z, similar effect, but different way going about it, and a much different composition, since it is more dissimilar, it is more “one of a kind.” Both my Degnomer and your Degnomer are unique, but since yours has more unique parts and functions, yours is “very unique” as opposed to my utensil which is just slightly unique.

If you refuse to accept this on the grounds that unique has little to do with the degree of disparity, note that Merriam Webster gives “unusual” as an alternate definition of unique.

ETA: OP, I’ve heard “I have that exact/precise lawnmower” before, if you swap “the” for “that” it’s not an odd phrase at all.

10

I disagree. I think people will use same by itself to mean perfectly identical to and exact same or same exact when they want to emphasize the identical nature.

11

Of course there are situations in which “exact lawnmower” would be correct, but I think that that is beside the point. What I claimed was that Bob’s reply in the following exchange would sound strange:

Jane: I have a GrassKing LM22
Bob: Hey, I have the exact lawnmower!

I trust that I am not the only one for whom Bob’s response sounds unnatural. For the same reason, “I have the same exact lawnmower” sounds wrong to me. The difference is, people actually do say “same exact” all the time (or at least, people type it - it’s mostly on the internet where I’ve noticed it).

Again, I stress that this is a grammatical issue. If somebody says “I have the same exact lawnmower”, it is perfectly clear what they mean, and how it is more specific than merely saying “the same lawnmower”. A hardline descriptivist might leave it that, and I have some sympathy with that point of view. But, as a native English speaker, “same exact” grates, I’m sorry. It just feels ungrammatical.

12

It’s, ah, Cockney Rhyming Slang.

–
“But it dosen’t rh–”
“Cockney. Rhyming. Slang.”