Casebook Examiner No. 4 (October 2010)

[m_w_r]

As for Maria's observation that "quite unique" is often found in American English that only proves there are chowderheads on both sides of the Atlantic.

Hi Don,

But isn't this an interesting feature of the English language? "Quite" sometimes means "perfectly" or "entirely"; and sometimes it means "fairly" or "to some extent".

- This chocolate cake is quite exquisite.
- Your essay was quite good.

In the first usage, as a means of emphasising that something really is as unique as it claims to be, "quite" is quite the correct word to use.

There's a similar thing with the word "just". I've been wondering whether Elizabeth Prater's room - just over Mary Kelly's - might not have been "nearly" over Kelly's, but "exactly" or "immediately" over Kelly's. You know the sort of thing - "Live near her? You're quite right I live near her. My room's just over hers."

Regards,

Mark

[Natalie Severn]

Quite so Mark! Our language is also extremely rich in homonyms eg homicide and murder!

[mariab]

Completely agree with what Marc demonstrated about the different nuances of the usage of “quite“ in English. British English tends to often use “quite“ as an reinforcement of an adverb (such as “This chocolate cake is quite exquisite.“), while the Yankees say things such as “I have quite a bit of experience with this.“
What such usage of “quite“ has in commun both in England and America is that it's normally used only in spoken language. To express a position in such a way in the written word is a bit too colloquial and vague.

[lynn cates]

one of a kind

Hello MWR.

"In the first usage, as a means of emphasising that something really is as unique as it claims to be, "quite" is quite the correct word to use."

Actually, "unique" means one of a kind. Either:

1. Something is one of a kind, hence unique.

or

2. It is NOT one of a kind, hence NOT unique.

I fear that some Yanks use it as synonymous for "unusual'--it is no such synonym.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Lynn Cates wrote:
I fear that some Yanks use it as synonymous for "unusual'--it is no such synonym.
Precisely, but also some Brits commit this specific “atrocity“. We should not hang everything on the Yanks!

[protohistorian]

Alright kids we Yanks get it. We do not so much speak the language as chew on it and spit it out. I will say this however, language is a living thing. Change is inevitable. While our versions of English differ, they are not yet mutually unintelligible. When we hit this point, American will become a language of it's own in the class of English languages. I should point out you do not speak like Henry VIII, because YOUR language has evolved over time. To say that Your English is The English is absurd and is really just an attempt to define a preferred dialect of English. It may be my English spitting American ways, but I say quit holding the past as if it is gold and let us evolve with our shared mode of expression. Dave

[m_w_r]

Yes - unique means "one of a kind". You don't need to tell me that. But I agree with you that it is often used to describe something which isn't unique, but only unusual - a crucial difference. In this light, describing something as "quite unique" is, I reckon, a useful means of expressing the fact that you know what you're talking about. Something which is "quite unique" is "perfectly unique" - not just unusual or scarce. This distinction puts one ahead of the illiterate masses, in my book.

I suppose while I'm here I might as well point out that I'm also fed up with people who don't know what "disinterested" means. Nobody distinguishes between "practice" and "practise" any more. And nobody calls you "Sir" in a shop. When I walk into a shop, it should be quite clear (by which I mean perfectly clear) what my name is, and it's not "Bossman".

Regards,

Mark

[protohistorian]

I agree Mark, there are some very unlikeable practices out there. That being said, we know enough about human development that we know that your language rules are installed in large measure between your 48th month of life (when you develop the concept of object permanence) and the onset of puberty (termination of the formative period and inculturation). We all have different values of what is "correct" in this regard. This is why we have things like dictionaries, to define what the shared value is. The point is there are no hard and fast rules for the collective like there are for the individual. There are agreed upon conventions, and these fluctuate with culture as a function of elements like the passage of time and geography. So while an individual may perceive something as violating the rule, and so worthy of derision. It is in fact a violation of their rule as a function of the agreed upon rules during their specific formative period. Even in supremely educated persons, the violation is at best both their rules and their perception of the agreed rules. Language, like most other human traits has within it a normal amount of variation, and to complain about it is like complaining about persons with brown eyes. Dave

[lynn cates]

Oed

Hello MWR.

"I agree with you that it is often used to describe something which isn't unique, but only unusual - a crucial difference. In this light, describing something as "quite unique" is, I reckon, a useful means of expressing the fact that you know what you're talking about."

But it is also an improper usage.

"Something which is "quite unique" is "perfectly unique" - not just unusual or scarce. This distinction puts one ahead of the illiterate masses, in my book."

But what of the more important book--the OED?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

language lover

Hello Dave. No derision intended. I merely pointed this out to Don because he is deeply concerned about the English language--just as I am.

The only time to hold on to the past is when we are experiencing, not evolution, but devolution. When I started in my curious profession nearly a quarter of a century ago, students could still read and write. You should see some of the papers I try to read now.

Cheers.
LC

[protohistorian]

I understand completely sir. I get the feeling however, that others of your views have less grounded concerns. It took me a year and a half to learn to walk again. Three months later I was at University. I lost all my grammar rules in the stroke, and regained only those needed to function at a passing level in my studies. I would love the mastery of the tongue that you possess, but not at the expense of learning other things like organizational skills that ripper related research helps me establish. In the reality I occupy, organization is a much higher priority than refining my communication skills. Dave

[m_w_r]

Hello Lynn,

But it is also an improper usage.

Yeah, but you and me are taking back the reins, here. We're not going to let the usual democratic / evolutionary processes bring us down to their level. Let's say "quite unique", and know what we mean when we say it, and rise above the uneducated majority. Did you like my misuse of the accusative pronoun in the first sentence, there? One hasn't gotta know what the rules are to break them, but one's definitely gotta know what the rules are to break them with panache.

But what of the more important book--the OED?

Well, yes, of course, but the OED reflects change - it doesn't drive change. And people who misuse language are rarely cognisant of the rules it suggests. We'll drive language forward together, and the OED can recognise that. What do you reckon? Joining the revolution?

Regards,

Mark

[lynn cates]

agreement

Hello Dave. We are in complete agreement. I think of language as the frosting on the cake. You can have cake without it, but, ah! how much better with it!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

in the driver's seat

Hello MWR.

"We'll drive language forward together"

Now THAT's a very sensible suggestion. (And thanks for "definitely" not "definately" or "defiantly." Oh dear, who has been correcting too many student essays?)

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Don,

But isn't this an interesting feature of the English language? "Quite" sometimes means "perfectly" or "entirely"; and sometimes it means "fairly" or "to some extent".

- This chocolate cake is quite exquisite.
- Your essay was quite good.

In the first usage, as a means of emphasising that something really is as unique as it claims to be, "quite" is quite the correct word to use.

There's a similar thing with the word "just". I've been wondering whether Elizabeth Prater's room - just over Mary Kelly's - might not have been "nearly" over Kelly's, but "exactly" or "immediately" over Kelly's. You know the sort of thing - "Live near her? You're quite right I live near her. My room's just over hers."

Regards,

Mark

Quite, Mark. And I don't mean 'fairly', 'pretty much' or 'almost'.

The context of Don's 'quite unique' should have made it quite clear (as in entirely clear) to the discerning reader (as Lynn is, as a rule - gerrit?) that he could only have meant it in the sense of 'indisputably' unique. Therefore, if 'quite' can mean 'indisputably', and something can be 'indisputably' unique, there is no breaking or bending of the rules - which is why it got through without the red pen treatment.

Hello Don. Zounds! I am so sorry to hear you were unwell. I trust you are on the mend now.

No problem about the departure from proper grammar--I cringe at some of my typos (discovered, alas, too late for rectification). It's just that I expect grammatical perfection from certain quarters--namely, you and Caz. So, I daresay she is feeling the pressure now lest she, too, make (subjunctive mood) a slip.

(By the way, good publication.)

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

The pressure I feel in this regard is the same as it ever was. I ripp'd myself too early from the education system and have spent every day since putting pressure on myself to make up for it, picking up the 'rules' as I went along by watching my betters applying them - in all areas, not just the written word.

In consequence, whenever (not if ever) I make a slip I blame myself for only checking what I have written three times instead of four. But if we had to be word perfect all the time before we dared to correct anyone else's slips, this medium - and therefore its lifeblood, which is communication - would be "alott" poorer for it - innit?

Incidentally, the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition was only brought in because it was the Latin way. But we're not in Rome and we didn't adopt - or adapt - the whole language, so this is one thing the Romans did for us that we don't need to carry on or thank them for.

Love,

Caz
X