1. "Unique" means "one of a kind." It uses no modifier. Something is either unique or it isn't, but it can't be partially unique. It can't be "very" unique, and certainly not "somewhat" unique, although it might be "nearly" unique, but using that form would require the writer to explain what prevents it from being all-the-way unique.
In spoken English and in advertising, "unique" is frequently used to mean "unusual" or "distinctive." Merriam-Webster, the permissive aunt of reference books, lists it as a third definition.
Oddly, we understand "unique" in the negative: "Her paintings were not unique." "The candidate offered nothing unique."
2. "Reticent" is not a synonym for "reluctant." It means "reluctant to speak" or "silent." To be "reticent to speak" would mean "reluctant to speak to speak" or, even worse, "silent to speak." The permissive aunt again muddies the water, listing it as a third definition.
3. Paula LaRocque, "America's Writing Coach" and columnist for Quill magazine, says this: "Have one's cake and eat it, too" (is) an illogical expression that should be wanting to "EAT one's cake and HAVE it, too." That's the only way the expression makes sense. We must always have our cake before we eat it. The expression is meaningful only in wanting to eat our cake and then still to have it — in that order.
Anyone get all three?
A blog devoted to writers and writing.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(80)
-
▼
April
(18)
- Whom do you think you are?
- Error prone
- Intimidation
- Grammar trivia
- A number of items
- AP oopses
- Apostropheses'
- Apostrophe's and plural's
- Anxious for eager
- An answer, a puzzle and a tip
- A puzzle and a tip
- Answers
- Spot the error
- An assignment
- English OCD
- Irregardless
- Rules that aren't
- English pet peeves
-
▼
April
(18)
2 comments:
Obviously, this is subjective. If one can't trust the venerable Merriam Webster, who decides which reference one can trust? Are students to look something up and trust that what they're reading is correct, only to have a teacher mark it incorrect because he/she doesn't agree with that particular reference manual? No wonder so many people refuse to look "things" up. I still assert that although I personally wouldn't have written the first two sentences in that way, they are not completely incorrect.
Yes, determining correct usage contains a degree of subjectivity. That's why the language experts debate the topic.
This blog is for writers, not students, designed to encourage clear, concise writing. The "rules" here are not rigid. But I think you would agree that writers should take the time to select the right word, as the late William F. Buckley frequently wrote.
The fact that you would not have used the words confirms that they are indeed incorrect. If words do not communicate what you mean, doesn't that make them incorrect?
Post a Comment