250th Answer -- Are absolute words absolutely absolute?
Congratulations, everyone, and welcome to our 250th Answer, written by guest grammarian pigsflew. My, how time flies!
Is it ever acceptable to qualify "unique" and other absolute words? (with examples from Mass Effect and the works of Alastair Reynolds)
A common pet peeve for many grammarians is when they read that something is "very unique" when "unique" by definition means that the item is the only example of its kind; to describe something as "more" or "less" so is often nonsensical. In general, it is a good idea to reexamine your diction when you find yourself attaching qualifiers to absolute words. However, every linguistic rule is made to be broken on occasion.
Many binary state words actually do have secondary comparative usages. For a simple example, we'll look at the word "wet":
"Little Miss?" Beast urgently intoned, every light in the cockpit blinking. Antoinette drowsily woke, dropping her palm onto one of the offending consoles.
"Beast, I was sleeping." It was then she noticed that she was drenched head to toe and that there was condensation on every panel. "Why am I wet? Why is everything so wet?"
"The environmental controls have become unresponsive, and the cockpit is at 100% humidity. While my core circuits are in an exclusion zone preventing environmental wear and tear, some of the gear in this cockpit is vulnerable to water damage."
"Come on, Beast. It doesn't get much more wet than this."
"Please do not tempt fate, Miss Bax."
The fact that "wet" is a binary state does not actually preclude us from needing to compare the wetness of one thing to another. This should be immediately apparent, and is the reason for the existence of such words as "drenched," "soaked," "damp," "moist," etc. These words are each binary and qualifiable.
It gets more difficult with a word like "unique," not because it is completely absolute, but because there are so few times when it is actually reasonable to compare it. However, one can compare two unique things, especially when those two things are themselves amalgamations of lots of non-unique features.
For an example, one might consider the design of a product. The product is obviously non-unique, but the design is, at least until it is copied. When a new design shares a large number of features with an old design, but still contains enough to set it apart, we might rightly say it is "not very unique." As in, it meets the criterion, but only barely. If this is valid, then something that bears almost no resemblance to anything which has ever come before in its class might rightly be called "very unique," especially as a shorthand for when so many unique qualities in an item in said class is extremely rare.
"The design is obviously Prothean," Liara intoned into her Omni-tool. "But these pieces are very unique."
"Very unique?" Dr. Olena's voice came over the comm, gently correcting her younger counterpart.
"This is the first time we have ever seen a site that suggests that the Protheans had multiple parallel artistic development paths which merely converged. These statues all share similarities with later artifacts but look nothing like one another."
While it may be acceptable to sometimes judge the comparative uniqueness of an item across a set, the use of qualifiers against words like "unique," "absolute," etc. are almost always incorrect. An easy way to tell if you should rethink your sentence is to check if an actual comparative form of the word exists: "wetter" for "wet," "fuller" for "full." There is no such word as "uniquer," and while occasional comparisons can be forgiven, you should examine carefully whether that is actually what you mean.
Is it ever acceptable to qualify "unique" and other absolute words? (with examples from Mass Effect and the works of Alastair Reynolds)
A common pet peeve for many grammarians is when they read that something is "very unique" when "unique" by definition means that the item is the only example of its kind; to describe something as "more" or "less" so is often nonsensical. In general, it is a good idea to reexamine your diction when you find yourself attaching qualifiers to absolute words. However, every linguistic rule is made to be broken on occasion.
Many binary state words actually do have secondary comparative usages. For a simple example, we'll look at the word "wet":
"Little Miss?" Beast urgently intoned, every light in the cockpit blinking. Antoinette drowsily woke, dropping her palm onto one of the offending consoles.
"Beast, I was sleeping." It was then she noticed that she was drenched head to toe and that there was condensation on every panel. "Why am I wet? Why is everything so wet?"
"The environmental controls have become unresponsive, and the cockpit is at 100% humidity. While my core circuits are in an exclusion zone preventing environmental wear and tear, some of the gear in this cockpit is vulnerable to water damage."
"Come on, Beast. It doesn't get much more wet than this."
"Please do not tempt fate, Miss Bax."
The fact that "wet" is a binary state does not actually preclude us from needing to compare the wetness of one thing to another. This should be immediately apparent, and is the reason for the existence of such words as "drenched," "soaked," "damp," "moist," etc. These words are each binary and qualifiable.
It gets more difficult with a word like "unique," not because it is completely absolute, but because there are so few times when it is actually reasonable to compare it. However, one can compare two unique things, especially when those two things are themselves amalgamations of lots of non-unique features.
For an example, one might consider the design of a product. The product is obviously non-unique, but the design is, at least until it is copied. When a new design shares a large number of features with an old design, but still contains enough to set it apart, we might rightly say it is "not very unique." As in, it meets the criterion, but only barely. If this is valid, then something that bears almost no resemblance to anything which has ever come before in its class might rightly be called "very unique," especially as a shorthand for when so many unique qualities in an item in said class is extremely rare.
"The design is obviously Prothean," Liara intoned into her Omni-tool. "But these pieces are very unique."
"Very unique?" Dr. Olena's voice came over the comm, gently correcting her younger counterpart.
"This is the first time we have ever seen a site that suggests that the Protheans had multiple parallel artistic development paths which merely converged. These statues all share similarities with later artifacts but look nothing like one another."
While it may be acceptable to sometimes judge the comparative uniqueness of an item across a set, the use of qualifiers against words like "unique," "absolute," etc. are almost always incorrect. An easy way to tell if you should rethink your sentence is to check if an actual comparative form of the word exists: "wetter" for "wet," "fuller" for "full." There is no such word as "uniquer," and while occasional comparisons can be forgiven, you should examine carefully whether that is actually what you mean.