A pet peeve of mine; I call people on it all the time.
There’s a class of words called absolute terms. They are nouns that describe (duh) an absolute condition. Perhaps the most obvious one is “unique.”
Attaching modifying adjectives to absolute nouns just doesn’t do anything except show how stupid you are. For example:
A thing is unique, or it is not. Unique means that it is one of a kind, so there is nothing to measure it against. Terms like “totally unique,” “almost unique,” “most unique,” etc., are meaningless (yes, the title’s a joke).
Recently, in another part of SDMB, a person who claimed to have graduate degrees in English and law used the term “almost universal,” which I challenged because universal is an absolute (i.e., something that is universal occurs or operates in all instances). That person said it is a valid phrase, and I countered saying that it was merely a way to make a statement emotionally laden, that is, it’s merely rhetoric designed to sway the suseptible to your point of view.
Ideal is another absolute. Dead. Best (he’s the very best…). There’s tons more.
Some amazingly dumb people get into college and eventually fall out the other end with a degree. Would it have been less offensive if the individual in question admitted to being a dropout?
Almost unique clearly means one of only a few, as in, if it weren’t for that one other guy named Tarquin Fintimlimbimlimbimwhimbimlin Bus Stop Ftang Ftang Olay Biscuit Barrel (Silly Party), Mr. Barrel would have a unique name. Clearly, his name is much closer to being unique than is that of Alan Jones (Sensible Party). Mr. Jones’ name is not almost unique.
Almost universal has a similarly obvious meaning.
Granted, one thing can’t be more unique (or more universal) than another, but things can obviously be almost unique or almost universal. Just because there are no degrees of having a property doesn’t mean that there aren’t degrees of not having it.
What the hell? You can’t almost die? You can’t, after meeting a woman who is perfect for you in every way except that she is one inch too short, call that woman almost ideal?
Sure you can. But people who jump in with two feet without reading the original post should die all the way.
Dead. You are either dead or you are alive. Die isn’t a noun. You can’t be partly dead, more dead, uniquely dead, totally dead (since it’s just the same as dead), nearly dead (since you aren’t, your alive!), etc.
Nice try at a save, Snakespirit, but you fucked up, and now you won’t admit it. True, one thing can’t be “more unique” than another, or be the “most unique” thing, but it can certainly be “almost unique” (there are only two of them in the world - each of them is almost unique).
Try it with “empty.” One glass can’t be “more empty” than another (it’s either empty or it isn’t), or be the “most empty.” But a glass can sure as hell be “almost empty.”
So, if I told you to “break a leg” I’d be threatening you physically? For someone who thinks they’re so right, you sure seem obtuse.
Literal definitions and usages of words change with time. Awesome used to mean “awe inspiring”, now it means “cool”, and that’s a whole different matter. I could point out a bunch more examples, but it seems that you’re aware of them.
People will continue to allow the English language to evolve, along with definitions and connotations. You, however, will still be standing there with your OED, fading into obscurity.
This doesn’t seem to me to be an issue that one can be definitively “for” or “against”. As long as the idea is properly conveyed, the language did it’s job.
OK, number one, you just intimated that I should die. Fuck you. Absolutely.
I read the whole OP, jackass. I also read everything in the link minty green provided, and I am now almost completely the nearly dumbest person in the world as a result. If you’re sick, and you’re so sick that you almost die, but you don’t, what are you? Nearly dead. If you nearly died, then you were nearly dead.
I know what a noun is. I know what a verb is. I also know not to start threads shooting off about subjects of which I am almost absolutely ignorant. By my count, I’m one up on you.
Your second paragraph makes less sense than your first. Mr. Jones’ name is NOT unique at all! Not nearly, not almost, not nothing. Mr, Barrel’s name may be unique, and likely it is. So what?
Almost universal is just an ass fuck, for the same reason. Not that it hasn’t fallen into common usage, which doesn’t make it correct English, just colloquial.
Let’s see, an almost universal joint would move in most directions, but not all, right? :smack:
The belief that Snakespirit is a moron is almost universally held. The only person who doesn’t believe it is Snakespirit. If we can make him see the light, the belief will be universally held. As it should be.
No, those are just mirrors.
Allow me to explain this in nice, simple, short words.
Many of these absolute terms, including, by happy accident, both ‘unique’ and ‘universal’, refer to properties at one end of a possible spectrum. Now, you are quite right that there are no degrees of uniqueness or universality. However, those things which occupy positions on the spectrum other than the extreme end occupy positions which do bear varying degrees of closeness to the end. Hence, things can be closer or further away from uniqueness or universality, and in cases of extreme closeness, might be accurately described as being almost unique or universal.
Or, as I said the first time round, just because there are no degrees of having a property doesn’t mean there are no degrees of not having that property.
You may, of course, continue with your prescriptivist grammarian rant if you so desire. But you should really know that universal joints can’t move in all directions. :eek: Horrifying, I know. Let’s all sue General Motors for crimes against the English language.
