The zombies gathering outside the mall entrance would take exception to this.
Bolding mine.
Is acceptable really what we’re striving for here?
…really?
‘Do it right or don’t do it at all’, I say. Acceptable… :rolleyes:
Hell, let’s take this to the next level. I’d like to introduce you to…
Uniquer. The restaurant that serves curried rat is uniquer than the one that serves frogs and peaches.
Uniquest. The restaurant that flambés its patrons is the uniquest.
Problem with descriptive words is that although their degrees are quantized (i.e., at set, definable levels), our minds are more continuous. One person’s “unique” might be another person’s “mundane”. So “more unique” or “almost universal” are understandable usage, even if it does make people wince.
And while “nearly dead” might not be an accurate description of what really happened, the person surely feels that he or she had one foot in the grave. (On a similar vein, could you be “nearly undead”? 
)
Oh come on, you don’t think I’d come back for a good laugh? I sure totally screwed up on this one in more ways than one. Minty might say I almost universally screwed up…
I can laugh at myself, after I get over the embarassment, and I do and will own up to my mistakes (you don’t mind if I don’t spell them out…), when I see them.
How about not being lazy and calling it what it is? Like:
It occurs in a majority of instances.
It occurs in an overwhelming majority of instances.
It occurs in all instances except one (or two, etc.).
Not only are thse phrases more exact, they convey more meaning.
What the fuck does almost universal mean?
To me it means someone who is too lazy to be exact and who wants to use the term universal to scare off further debate. Which is why I called Minty on it; I saw the use of the term as an attempt to obfuscate. And I said so, where I saw it.
By the time I got here (Le Pit), the foam dripping from my jaws (nasty stuff) fell in my coffee and consequently affected my memory, rationality, objectivity and blood level of my SRSI’s.
At least that’s what the thought police told me…
I very strongly agree with you. And after-life is the same as after-death.
Also, there is infinite improbability…as close to impossible a condition can get without being impossible. Hitchhiker’s Guide, I believe.
You’ve created a bit of a conundrum here. If Snakespirit is a moron, he can hardly be expected to see the light. So if he does see the light (which he appears to have done in post 19), then he is not a moron. So once the belief becomes universally held it also becomes untrue.
You seem to have created a bit of a conundrum yourself. One calling himself a moron makes himself a genius? Well, then, I’m a moron. And if claiming oneself a moron makes oneself a genius, how does one express he is an actual moron? By remaining quiet? He didn’t say he was a moron, so he must not be a genius. Where does this leave people who can’t speak? Are we to assume they are all morons? How do we know? And what of one calling himself a genius? Does he not know calling himself a moron is the true expression of genius? Maybe not. So, he may actually be a moron. I think you’ve got it. Want to tell someone you’re a genius? Call yourself a moron. Want to express to someone you’re a moron? Call yourself a genius. It seems so much clearer this way.
First off, maybe you’ve forgotten the rule, but “not only…” must be accompanied by “…but also.” How about not being lazy next time and using correct grammar?
Second, “these” has two E’s in it.
Third, the phrases you listed do NOT convey more meaning: you only think so because you are deliberately or negligently ignoring connotations. “Almost universal” conveys a sense of near-ubiquity not conveyed by “all instances except one (or two, etc.)” Furthermore, it may be used when the speaker isn’t aware of the number of exceptions to the rule.
You priests in your black gowns almost never improve the language with your briar-fences around arbitrarily-chosen phrases. Language is not a laboratory, not even a garden, but is rather a rich wilderness, wild and anarchistic and untameable and lovely. However much that frightens you is your problem and yours alone.
Daniel
Definitely so. I hope this isn’t the example that Hitchiker’s Guide uses, but if a computer chooses an integer at random, what are the chances that it’ll choose 10? One in infinity, same as the chances for choosing any other integer.
Actually, I think this proves that true random choice of a unit from an infinite set is impossible. The chance of NOT choosing any specific unit is .999… out of 1, which everyone knows is the same as 1 out of 1. That means no specific unit can be chosen. It took me a long time to accept that this wasn’t a disproof of the idea that .999… equals 1.
Was that a hijack?
Daniel
What’s the problem with that? “I’ve got this chick for you, almost your ideal woman, only she’s a little shorter than you like?”
The OP mentions using it for rhetorical effect, what’s the problem? What’s wrong with superlating superlatives? (OK, “superlating’s” not a word) Saying she’s “almost ideal” emphasizes the impossibility (or at least difficulty) of finding the ideal woman? I think it’s a valid description.
Nitpick: It’s not easy to explain why, but iirc the way probability is defined by mathematicians, it is impossible to pick an integer in such a way that each integer has the same chance, but it is possible to pick a real number so that each number has the same chance. In this case, it has a probability zero, but is still possible, which I think it’s fair to describe informally as “infinitely improbable.”
My dictionary defines “exact” as “adj. Strictly accurate and precise: correct.”
By your rules then, wouldn’t it be incorrect to say that something is “more exact”?
Not necessarily: eg. 3 miles is less precise than 3.1 miles; precise and accurate can be analogue.
Hey, Ursula-hole:
For people who are English speakers, the 'but also" in this case is assumed. It’s shorthand, not laziness, and it is understood be all but dorks.
Oh, so now tou are picking on me because of my physical disabilities? That’s gonna get you LOTS of credibility here. I have central cord syndrome, and when I touch keys they don’t always go down far enough to register.
I may be disabled, but at least I’m not an asshole. Thank God, cause you fill that bill quite nicely.
Fuck no! I’ve been enlightened! I can even say almost universal now! Haven’t you read the whole thread? Please do so before you blow your mouth off.
Plus, almost universal carries an emotional content that “all cases but ##” does not.
:smack: Fucking mosquitos!
Wait. What? That’s what I was saying. Right?
The point of the OP was that using modifiers like “almost” with absolute conditions like “ideal” makes one stupid- so “almost ideal” is improper usage. I think it’s valid too.
I have read the whole thread, and at one point I thought there might actually be some hope for you. I no longer think so. You’re a jerk and an asshole, and I will no longer be reading anything you post.
Bad answer: as I’m all about the shorthand, about the connotations, about the subtlety of language, I agree with what you said. My point is that you don’t meet the same standards that you set up for other people; the word for that is “hypocrite.”
I don’t often say this, but :rolleyes: . Am I correct in thinking that blindness is not among your disabilities, and that your keyboard is equipped with a left arrow key? Am I correct in thinking that you are therefore able to see the screen and, if a key is not sufficiently pressed in order to register, you can hit the left arrow key until the cursor is in the correct place and then press the key again? I mean, I’m sorry for your disability, but it’s no excuse for your flagrant flouting of the rules of spelling.
Incidentally, “you” is spelled with a “y” and not a “t”; I gather your disability also forces you to hit the wrong keys sometimes and then prevents you from using the backspace key?
As for your last sentence, I take polite exception with it: you’ve demonstrated unrepentant assholery in this thread. I do admire, however, the sheer brilliance with which you come up with insults relating to my user name; they strike to my very heart.
Moral of the story: don’t spout off about other folks’ grammar and spelling, unless they’ve already spouted about someone else’s grammar and spelling. If you do spout off, make goddamn sure your criticism of them is correct, and do your goddamnedest to avoid making errors of your own. Proofread your spouting posts, twice.
You broke every one of those rules, and now you’re meeting hubris’s partner in crime. And now I’m done with you, until I see a modicum of humility and respect from you.
Daniel