There are no degrees of uniqueness.

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

They are hardly unique.

Haha.

 

[maxcok]

^ I'm guessin you're not a general absolutist?

 

[helgaleena]

I'm an absolute specifier. :tongue:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

^ I'm guessin you're not a general absolutist?

'Cept when I wanna be pretenshus.

 

[maxcok]

^ Ur preshus when ur pretenshus.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

O! Max.:tongue:

 

[Pandora77]

Something is either unique or it is not.

A person or thing cannot be very unique, quite unique or a bit unique. A person or thing is either one of a kind or it is not.

Even almost unique doesn't cut it and totally unique is just a tautology.

So please stop doing it. You're pissing me off.

The same with pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. You can not be a little bit pregnant or almost pregnant. :biggrin1:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

The same with pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. You can not be a little bit pregnant or almost pregnant. :biggrin1:

Mmmm.
Well, it certainly has meaning to say that someone is "really pregnant " ... meaning swollen-bellied and not far from delivery.
The fact is that people do use these terms, or many of them, in ways that do allow some shading.
So you have the old debate between the prescriptivists and the descriptivists.
No definitive answer.

 

[maxcok]

^ preshus :tongue:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Many people use the words "totally" and "very" as meaningless intensifiers, "bit" or "quite" as meiosis as a meaningless intensifier, which I also frequently do ...

Huh?
What does 'meiosis' mean in this instance?

Is this a unique bending of the term's usual meaning?

 

[nudeyorker]

Well then I have a hypothetical question. Suppose someone creates something very clever and unique and someone else copies or knocks it off. Would that then be quasi-unique?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Well then I have a hypothetical question. Suppose someone creates something very clever and unique and someone else copies or knocks it off. Would that them be quasi-unique?

The Absolutists ... the Prescriptivists * hiss hiss * ... would say No.
I'd say, depends on how many copies you made and how rarely it still came into the hands of those who might seek it.

 

[nudeyorker]

The Absolutists ... the Prescriptivists * hiss hiss * ... would say No.
I'd say, depends on how many copies you made and how rarely it still came into the hands of those who might seek it.

Well I have a very nice brief case and I consider it unique. However because it's been knocked off (even though I can tell the difference) I now only consider it quasi-unique!
http://www.bagsmerchant.com/

 

[maxcok]

Well I have a very nice brief case and I consider it unique. However because it's been knocked off (even though I can tell the difference) I now only consider it quasi-unique!
Designer Replica Handbags from Gucci, LV, Hermes, Coach & More - Knockoff Designer Chanel Bags & Purses - Fake Inspired Imitation

Well, I would say unless the piece was one of a kind it would not have been strictly 'unique' to begin with, though you could properly say it was fairly unique, rather unique, etc., in the sense of it being rare and uncommon. Now that there are knock-offs, you could still say it was fairly, rather, kinda, sorta, etc., as long as you are able to distinguish it from the copies.

I would not seriously say quasi-unique, as that implies it resembles something else and carries the connotation of being lesser than the real thing, even fakiness. That might better apply to the knock-offs. Of course you may say whatever you like, especially as I imagine you are saying it tongue in cheek. Quasi-unique has an element of irony, and it is a more creative expression than any of the above, but again, hardly unique.
Which one is your bag??

Huh?
What does 'meiosis' mean in this instance? Is this a unique bending of the term's usual meaning?

Possibly 180 degrees.

 

[Gillette]

Possibly 180 degrees.

Indeed. It's a form of minimization.
Intensifier?

 

[Mr. Snakey]

This thread is a very unique form of gibberish.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Possibly 180 degrees.

One meaning is rhetorical understatement.
Sorta fits.
Not sure that she worded the sentence the best way.

Indeed. It's a form of minimization.
Intensifier?

Well, if you understood that it was understatement, then it might be considered indirect intensification.
I dunno.

This thread is a very unique form of gibberish.

Meester Snakey ... we agree to listen, but not to truth.:tongue:

 

[maxcok]

'meiosis'

One meaning is rhetorical understatement.
Sorta fits. . . . .

Possibly 180 degrees.

^ Intentionally worded, this time bolded for emphasis.

Indeed. It's a form of minimization.
Intensifier?

The usual definition of an uncommon, even arcane word is generally the one to be assumed, imho. Still, I said "possibly" to allow for another definition, though 'probably' would be entirely appropos. To try to apply that tangential meaning, especially in the context writtern, is quite a stretch, imho, and still makes no sense. Anywayz, Huck Huck, you's de one called de meaning inta question, so's way's you gwine whidis anywayz?

This thread is a very unique form of gibberish.

Semantics may not be everybody's cup o tea, but how is it gibberish? Especially since it's kinda the topic of the thread? It seems neither unintelligible nor meaningless on the one hand, nor obscure nor pretentious on t'other. I sees alot more 'gibberish' generally flung all over this site. I, for one, am just grateful to be having an intelligent civil discussion without being bashed over the head by trolls.

 

[earllogjam]

As I lay here on the bed I'm enthused that this topic had an affect on someone; irregardless of they're suggested meaning their inferring to.

 

[crescendo69]

As I lay here on the bed I'm enthused that this topic had an affect on someone; irregardless of they're suggested meaning their inferring to.

:tongue: