As to “very unique,” Indistinguishable is right, “Whenever you describe something as unique, you mean unique in some respect.” I’m happy with the trope “unique in that…” because it requires the writer or speaker to identify the “uniqueness.” The term “very unique” doesn’t require that, thus I claim it is lazy.
And of course, the trope “it’s very unique because…” will identify its especial rarity in the following clauses, eliminating the need for “very.”
Why can’t people accept the fact that some things are black-and-white, while other things have degrees and shades of gray? Is it really that difficult?
I’m a big believer in shades of gray, which is why I’m happy to accept “very hypothetical,” but not “very unique.” But I think that accepting shades of gray is, in fact, very difficult, and that not many of us do it, or even see that it is useful. Writing clearly has to do with thinking clearly, and things like “very unique” indicate lack of thought.
But you might as well say that “unique” indicates lack of thought, in that it also does not enumerate the respects in which uniqueness is being asserted. But that’s ok; often the respects will be implicit in the context anyway, just as with “very unique”. And as for “It’s very unique because…”, should one ever want to say it, perhaps merely enumerating the reasons for uniqueness in certain respects does not sufficiently stress how remarkable this uniqueness is, and thus one would want to add the “very” for emphasis. There are any number of reasons one might want to say “very unique”; why submit to a proscriptive urge to deny them?
I also accept that some things are black-and-white while other things have degrees and shades of gray, so to speak. But I happen to think the word “unique” can be used in a manner allowing for shades. Even among properties which are black and white, I don’t think this imposes syntactic constraints upon the grammar of the language.
Er, let me reword that last line. Even though there are properties which are black and white, I don’t think this generally imposes syntactic constraints upon the grammar of natural language.
No, “unique” always implies thought, as it implicitly requires comparison. There are times when the singularity is so obvious it requires nothing more to be said. There are other times when the reason for the singularity of an event or thing is less obvious. Simply saying “very unique” doesn’t identify the reason for the singularity, and saying, or writing, “very unique” and then identifying the reasons is redundant.
I’m not trying to be hard line about usage here; rather I’m trying to find useful rules of language which encourage clear thought.
Another one, for instance, is that the word “Christian” should never be used as an adjective. People do it all the time, and it’s certainly dictionary approved, but if you don’t use it as an adjective you’re required to think more carefully about what you mean to say.
Yeah, and if they have to avoid the word “Christian” altogether, people will really be forced to scratch their heads!
And your point is?
That I think the idea that simple usage proscriptions accomplish anything useful by making people think more carefully about what they’re saying is silly.
God forbid.
That’s stupid. Christian church. Christian cross. Christian theology. Christian morals.
You seem to not get the idea that being 100% exact is not necessary. I can always look at something you say and say you were not specific enough. I could call you lazy for not specifying why Christian is problematic as an adjective.
A person only needs to be as specific as is necessary for the context of the conversation.
Finally, even your own examples fail: “While Wally is unique due to his method of running, his brother Clark is very unique: he actually can fly.”
Are you arguing that people are unteachable?
When I was a kid, my dad told me if I couldn’t write it, I didn’t understand it. I tried to teach that to my kids. And it had to be written clearly. He was right. Add a little Strunk and White–brevity, economy–and you get the basis of the notion.
The idea of the use of the word “Christianity” came from the Rev. William Lazareth, a pretty remarkable guy, by the way.
I’m open to other contributions.
I’m really confused. What, exactly, is the problem with “Christian” as an adjective? I can see no reasonable objection to it–nor have ever heard any proscription against it being used in this manner.
Well, there are churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. There are no Christian mosques, Jewish churches, Moslem synagogues, etc. Each is specific to it’s religion. So that’s one.
There are Latin crosses and Greek crosses, both symbolic for some Christians. Both quite different. The notion of a “Christian cross” doesn’t differentiate. So that’s two.
Russian Orthodox claim to be Christian, Roman Catholics claim to be Christian, Mormons claim to be Christian. I doubt you could make the case of any significant theological commonality. Christians have differing theologies. That’s three.
Do serious Christians have differences over all sorts of ethical issues? Of course. I defy you to find one ethical or moral issue that all Christians hold uniquely. That’s four.
Wanna go for five?
The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior? If nits like this cause you to feel “Christian theology” is somehow an inherently misleading phrase, and thus to be avoided, then why limit your concern to adjectival uses of the word “Christian”? Why should we even be allowed to use “Christian” as a noun, or “Christianity”, or what have you, if such variations are so problematic?
It’s simply that Christianity has always been, and remains, remarkably diverse.
The single statement that all Christians would agree to is: “I believe Jesus is the Son of God.” One might recast that statement as “The core of Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God.” Given that all rules are meant to be broken, I’ll accept that use of “Christian” as an adjective. After that, I can’t think of a simple sentence that all professed Christians can agree to. Can you?
By remembering not to use it as an adjective, one remembers the diversity of Christianity. That’s a pretty good deal in my book. Thus my notion that word usage can contribute to clarity of thought.
There are professed Christians in what are commonly thought of as “orthodox” denominations who are unsure of the resurrection. It remains a mystery to them, but the works and preachings of Jesus, and the historic results of them, are evidence of His divinity. That’s not an unusual stance among American Christians.
There are billions of people who believe that Jesus is the Son of God. They call themselves Christians. That’s a noun. There is no unique consensus among them about anything after that, that I can find. Thus, no adjective.
To the Mod,
I didn’t mean to turn this into a great debate, but perhaps I have. My notion was to talk about the intersection between language and thought. I might have used the wrong example. (Or perhaps precisely the right one!)
This seems to display some confusion over what amounts to to be a noun or an adjective. Considerations of the properties of the semantic referents of words have no bearing on their syntactic properties, including lexical class (e.g., status as a noun or an adjective). If one person says “Many, though not all, Christians believe that…” and another says “A common, albeit not universal, Christian belief is that…”, they are saying the same thing, even though the one got there with a noun and the other with an adjective.
ETA: But I agree that perhaps we are spending too much time on this, to the hijacking detriment of the thread.