# What is this linguistic phenomenon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 16, 2021, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039 "2021-03-16T18:10:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/121 "2021-03-20T10:20:26Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > I have read, that to be good at breaking the rules , you have to be good at knowing what are the rules you are breaking. > > > [@pulykamell](#): > > > > It’s a pithy adage I used to adhere to, but like most pithy adages, it overgeneralizes. The way my drama teacher in high school used to phrase it was this way: if you know the rules, break them, and get something great, it’s genius. If you don’t know the rules, beak them and get something great, it’s just an accident. She was explaining why people who come out of nowhere, often produce something great once, but never again, while people who learn, work, build up a body of work, with things that get better and better, often eventually produce a number of great things. I don’t remember the whole lecture, but she had quite a number of examples of each, and the outliers-- people who produced a number of great works beginning in youth, were your Mozarts, and such, and they did know the rules, they just learned them very early. > [@DSeid](#): > > IOW true “outsider art”. Outsider, or “primitive” art usually follows sui generis rules, and each artist has a large body of work. It’s kind of like “twin speech,” or other languages that springs up in a small, isolated group-- it always has grammar and syntax, and qualifies as genuine language. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/122 "2021-03-20T15:33:54Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I’m not really even thinking that. I mean, look at the Beatles, for instance. They didn’t really “know” the rules in any formal way – sure, we can say they internalized it by being around music. But that’s the same with language – we “learn” the rules by internalizing the language around us. There’s a secondary set of formal rules that we have to learn by being taught them. I don’t think the formal set is necessarily necessary to create successful works. The Beatles and many musicians did fine without knowing a lick about music theory or what rules they were breaking or why they were breaking them when they were breaking them. It just sounded good. I would agree with this. I’ve been a writer for 50 years, with experience in pretty much everything: fiction, nonfiction, advertising, manuals, speeches, columns, blogs, academic papers. I also read extensively across multiple fields and types of writing. I’m admittedly narrow: my hobbies are reading and writing. I’ve made it a point to learn the formalities of language and writing, something that not every writer bothers with. I learned not to be a prescriptivist. I also learned that some writers have their own idiosyncratic language that works for them. I haven’t learned how I’ve put those fifty years of experience together to get where I am today. I’m a good writer. Really good. But only after I’ve gone over my work line by line several times to make it sound right. That usually involves loosening the language rather than tightening it. I know it when I see it. Sometimes I never see it, and the sentence just sits there, mortar to the filigreed brickwork.\* I’ve been to many writer’s workshops and I’ve read many stories by people who couldn’t compose a readable English sentence. Few of those, however, broke any rules. Dullness follows rules. I’ve also read psychedelic stories that shunned sense. Those were even less readable. Knowing the rules is like knowing the scales, the bare beginning that any artist must get far beyond to create art. \*Yes I can damn well pair filigreed with brickwork. I ain’t no amateur. ---
**Author:** ![richmondie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richmondie/32/7248_2.png) [@richmondie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/richmondie)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/123 "2021-03-20T16:51:24Z")
I once wrote a macro that removed the word “very” - among other things! ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/124 "2021-03-20T16:58:14Z")
I want one that removes f-bombs. Over 500 in my first MS, I cut it down to 150 or so. Like adverbs, they pop up like weeds for me. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/125 "2021-03-20T18:00:47Z")
“Search” helps. When I used to write for school, or for anything that was going to be critiqued, I always searched for things that I thought were not the best form, or made writing clunky when overused. One was the “was _verb_ing” form. I’d search for it, and replace it with plain old “_verb_ed” any time it was six of one as far as making sense. I also searched on "ly " (yes, with the space) to hunt up adverbs and make sure it wasn’t better to replace the verb with one more specific, or just lose the adverb, and let the verb stand. Then I needed to de a separate search for “very.” I’d search up “would” to make sure I hadn’t used it redundantly. I had a list, but I don’t know whether I still have it. I haven’t written for a grade nor publication for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/126 "2021-03-20T18:23:47Z")
I should mention that semantic narrowing also occurs. The English word “deer” is cognate to a word that in old English meant any kind of four-legged animal (the German word “Tier” (which just means animal) also is cognate to “deer” and in older English texts you can see that “meat” meant “food” of any kind (“One man’s meat is another man’s poison” has nothing to do with animal flesh). Another interesting case - the English word “starve” is cognate to older words meaning “to die” (of any cause). In all these cases words with broader meanings narrowed to one specific meaning. Ok. One more fun example - if you read an old English text in which someone talks about a “stench,” it’s not necessarily a bad smell - it’s any odor good or bad. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/127 "2021-03-20T23:18:47Z")
Other examples: girl was not always female, and queen comes from a word that referred to women in general (and still does, in Swedish and Danish). Words for smell seem to be prone to acquiring a negative meaning. To stink was originally to emit a smell of any kind; now it is reserved for foul smells. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/128 "2021-03-20T23:20:08Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > True. Even if they ARE wrong, their insisting on it would not be not “gaslighting”. Just common pigheadedness. Or outright lying. . I think what may have invited the use of “gaslighting” rather than just “lying” or “making stuff up” or “disagreeing” is the development of two separate “realities.” One of them real, one constructed. Depending on your political alignment and news sources, you might be operating on a completely different set of facts from your neighbor. “Gaslighting” isn’t the right term either, but I can see why people stretched for something qualitatively different from the more mundane choices. Maybe historians will coin a new term for it in the future… ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2021, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/129 "2021-03-21T15:06:23Z")
There’s a word for “very unique”… “Distinctive”. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2021, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/130 "2021-03-21T16:25:47Z")
“Distinctive” doesn’t feel exclusionary enough to me. “Extremely rare” feels closer to what “very unique”” strives to convey. That said, if one wanted to be a bit of a pest, one can argue uniqueness can be treated as being comparable. There are many many many unique items in the world, depending on your criteria, and certain items can be more unique if they share more unique criteria than others. For example, every one dollar bill is unique, as they don’t share a serial number. But my dollar bill with all “5”s as a serial number is even more unique, as it’s the only one that has that unique quality. Not that people use comparative and superlative “unique” literally in that way, but it’s a thought, just like the idea of bigger and smaller infinities. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2021, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/131 "2021-03-23T06:04:39Z")
Fascism, etc., etc. Orwell, _[Politics and the English Language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language)_: > The word _[Fascism](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fascism)_ has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”. The words _[democracy](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Democracy)_, _[socialism](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socialism)_, _[freedom](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Freedom)_, _[patriotic](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patriotic)_, _[realistic](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Realistic)_, _[justice](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Justice)_ have each of them several different [meanings](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Meanings) which cannot be reconciled with one another. […] Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. […] Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: _class_, _[totalitarian](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Totalitarian)_, _[science](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Science)_, _progressive_, _reactionary_, _bourgeois_, _[equality](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Equality)_ . ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2021, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/132 "2021-03-23T14:35:58Z")
That plagiarist! I should sue! Unique, BTW, could be replaced by “one-of-a-kind.” Even English couldn’t turn that into “very one-of-a-kind.” ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2021, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/133 "2021-03-23T16:11:11Z")
I daresay, I think it could. It sounds plausible enough of a construction to my ears that I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it multiple times before, and doing a quick Google of the phrase, does confirm its use (including those from folks arguing against its use, suggesting that this is quietly creeping its way through the language.) Here’s a recent excerpt from the Santa-Fe New Mexican: > “Todos Santos was a very one-of-a-kind store that just closed,” Simoneaux says. > **[‘Swimming upstream and asking, “How do we do this?” ’: Businesses in Santa Fe...](https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/coronavirus/swimming-upstream-and-asking-how-do-we-do-this-businesses-in-santa-fe-feel-anguish/article_608bc1fc-33f8-11eb-ba94-bf543f4b1fb5.html)** > > Santa Fe business owners talk about closures and the struggle to keep going in the pandemic. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2021, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/134 "2021-03-23T16:22:05Z")
That’s spoken English, which I keep trying to explain is a different animal from written English. I don’t think the phrase is likely to take off. [This page](https://sentenceof.com/one-of-a-kind.html) lists 575 uses of “one-of-a-kind” and exactly one is modified by “very.” ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2021, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/135 "2021-03-23T17:32:34Z")
I guess I’m not sure what exactly is being said here, or if we even differ. “Very one-of-a-kind” and “very unique” are both colloquial and “problematic” phrases. Both are also used in writing, though “very unique” is much more common, and both are nonstandard. If you search Google Books, or Google News you will find examples of “very one-of-a-kind” in the written word, not quoting someone and not having to do with explaining why “very unique” doesn’t make sense. Of course spoken English is different than written English, but neither phrase is “acceptable” in written English, if you’re writing to follow prestige dialect rules. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2021, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/136 "2021-03-23T17:48:47Z")
Very unique is so well established that it is frequently seen in “good” writing, i.e. the work of professionals. Very one-of-a-kind isn’t. It’s so rare that I had never seen it before. I’m betting it will stay that way. Are they acceptable in formal English? Who cares? Fuck formal English. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2021, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/137 "2021-03-23T17:51:24Z")
Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2021, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/138 "2021-03-24T00:58:39Z")
When I put “very one-of-a-kind” into Google, it finds 210 examples of it. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2021, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/139 "2021-03-24T01:10:41Z")
And “very unique” garners 27,500,000. I think you’re making my point. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2021, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/140 "2021-03-24T01:18:12Z")
Actually, “very unique” has only 220 results. You don’t look at the number on the first page. You work your way through the pages of results until there are no more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039.md?page=8)