[kenberg]

 squealydan, on 2012-September-05, 06:26, said:

Ken should not visit New Zealand. "Between you and I" is absolute standard usage here and the decline started at least 25 years ago.

Even worse, the opposite is starting to invade - object pronouns appearing in place of subjects. It is not at all uncommon to hear people say "her and I were talking last night". It sounds so ridiculously unnatural to me that I can't imagine how people started to use it.

Yes, these are examples of what gets me. As Vampyr points out, I am hardly error free. I have long ago given up any illusions about my own infallibility, and I happily learn from observations such as hers. But in cases such as the above, I would have to consciously decide to violate rules I learned in elementary school before I would say such things.

[TimG]

There are any number of things that have worked their way into accepted usage. I believe "good" in response to "how are you?" is one of those. So is "very unique". Doesn't mean we have to like them. . .

Before long, "alot" will be a word and "could of" will be an acceptable variation of "could have".

[gwnn]

Am I the only one who finds "Just because (...) doesn't mean (...)" (sometimes "it doesn't mean") illogical? OK, I admit that everyone uses it, and that language is more often than not illogical...

[BunnyGo]

http://stroppyeditor...eur-grammarian/

[gordontd]

 TimG, on 2012-September-05, 07:53, said:

There are any number of things that have worked their way into accepted usage. I believe "good" in response to "how are you?" is one of those.

I don't think it's quite reached accepted usage over here yet, though it's increasingly common. However, the question itself "How are you?", asked by unknown shop assistants and waiters, or when being introduced for the first time, seems to be becoming accepted. I have a friend who feigns surprise when asked it, and replies "Oh, are you a doctor?"

[kenberg]

"My name is Sue, how do you do?"

Since "How are you?" is not a question that is intended to elicit a detailed, or accurate, or even thoughtful response, I suppose the grammatical details are pretty much irrelevant.

[ArtK78]

 TimG, on 2012-September-05, 07:53, said:

There are any number of things that have worked their way into accepted usage. I believe "good" in response to "how are you?" is one of those. So is "very unique". Doesn't mean we have to like them. . .

Before long, "alot" will be a word and "could of" will be an acceptable variation of "could have".

"Very unique" or any moderator attached to unique will never be acceptable to me. It is one of my pet peeves.

[barmar]

 gwnn, on 2012-September-05, 08:10, said:

Am I the only one who finds "Just because (...) doesn't mean (...)" (sometimes "it doesn't mean") illogical? OK, I admit that everyone uses it, and that language is more often than not illogical...

I use it, and it feels clumsy when I do so, but any alternative seems overly verbose. It's kind of like ending a sentence with a preposition -- twisting the sentence around to get the preposition inthe proper grammatical place makes it seem archaic or overly formal.

[barmar]

 ArtK78, on 2012-September-05, 09:28, said:

"Very unique" or any moderator attached to unique will never be acceptable to me. It is one of my pet peeves.

The alternative is something verbose like "unique in a very extreme (or remarkable) way". If the simple phrase "very unique" gets the point across, what's so bad about it? The purpose of language is to communicate, not to demonstrate that one has mastered a set of rules.

[ArtK78]

 barmar, on 2012-September-05, 09:36, said:

The alternative is something verbose like "unique in a very extreme (or remarkable) way". If the simple phrase "very unique" gets the point across, what's so bad about it? The purpose of language is to communicate, not to demonstrate that one has mastered a set of rules.

How about "unique?" How can one moderate the quality of being the only one?

[phil_20686]

 barmar, on 2012-September-05, 09:36, said:

The alternative is something verbose like "unique in a very extreme (or remarkable) way". If the simple phrase "very unique" gets the point across, what's so bad about it? The purpose of language is to communicate, not to demonstrate that one has mastered a set of rules.

Why not use `uncommon'? A perfectly nice word that is not binary.

[barmar]

 ArtK78, on 2012-September-05, 09:59, said:

How about "unique?" How can one moderate the quality of being the only one?

Because the way in which something is the only one can be more or less surprising, exceptional, etc.

Suppose all but one day during the summer is in the 60's (Fahrenheit) or higher. If the outlier were 55, it would be unique, but not very remarkable. On the other hand, if it were below freezing, that would be quite surprising. I wouldn't have a problem with calling it "very unique" as a way of getting that point across succinctly.

[barmar]

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-05, 10:03, said:

Why not use `uncommon'? A perfectly nice word that is not binary.

If you're trying to emphasize something, it seems like using a LESS extreme word can hardly be the solution.

[ggwhiz]

 ArtK78, on 2012-September-05, 09:28, said:

"Very unique" or any moderator attached to unique will never be acceptable to me. It is one of my pet peeves.

I am by no means anywhere nearly good enough at this but improved a lot by reading Stephen King "On Writing".

Economy of words and I just broke all his rules.

[semeai]

 ArtK78, on 2012-September-05, 09:28, said:

"Very unique" or any moderator attached to unique will never be acceptable to me. It is one of my pet peeves.

Surprisingly unique

[phil_20686]

 barmar, on 2012-September-05, 10:26, said:

If you're trying to emphasize something, it seems like using a LESS extreme word can hardly be the solution.

You are using unique to emphasis the uncommonness of something. By definition a thing cannot be "very one of a kind". The English language has a variety of synonyms for uncommon, off the top of my head, rare, special, remarkable, unusual, improbable, or atypical.

Moreover, your example of a day with a different temperature, is actually a misuse of unique. The 55 degree day is not unique, it is manifestly of the same type as the other measurements, it is different only by degree. You cannot have a "uniquely high temperatures", or a "uniquely large bath", for a thing cannot properly be described as unique if it differs only by degree. It should be qualitatively different, rather than quantatively different.

[TimG]

 ArtK78, on 2012-September-05, 09:28, said:

"Very unique" or any moderator attached to unique will never be acceptable to me. It is one of my pet peeves.

I dislike it too. Merriam-Webster gives as the 3rd definition of unique:

: unusual <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch — J. D. Salinger>

[semeai]

At least we haven't heard literally unique yet, or at least I never have [with the figurative use of literally, of course]

[phil_20686]

 barmar, on 2012-September-05, 09:36, said:

The alternative is something verbose like "unique in a very extreme (or remarkable) way". If the simple phrase "very unique" gets the point across, what's so bad about it? The purpose of language is to communicate, not to demonstrate that one has mastered a set of rules.

If my examiner tells me to work individually, but the definition of an individual is a "unique entity", and that just means uncommon, so really he intended us to collaborate in small groups, as then our work will still be uncommon relative to the number of entries. But then we are a math class, so I look in a text book to see that counting is nothing but a unique mapping, and it follows that if I define a different mapping, it will still be uncommon, so it follows that all numbers are basically equivalent, so the whole class can collaborate and it will still be uncommon.

Sadly only Harvard students are smart enough to figure out that this is really what their examiners are saying...

[semeai]

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-05, 11:03, said:

Sadly only Harvard students are smart enough to figure out that this is really what their examiners are saying...

oh snap!