It seems to me that your response doesn't address my attempt at a
distinction between the lunch (unique) and the experience (unique the
first time but not otherwise). Let me describe something similar.
You go to view the German U-boat U-534 at the Nautilus Museum,
Birkenhead, Merseyside. U-534 is unique in that it's the only U-534 in
existence. Your first visit is a unique experience but follow-on visits
probably aren't unless the museum displays change. But on your second
visit U-534 is still unique.
U-534 is lunch at Hilarion's house. (although I suggest you not try to
eat it).
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/1/2015 9:38 AM, ChrisB wrote:
‘Unique' means one, no other, Chuck. If he’s done it before you
can’t call it unique. And it caused me no confusion (otherwise I
should have admitted confusion :-)), but it’s a misuse of the word.
And misuse of words like ‘unique’ or ‘literally’ robs the language of
powers of expression. The more we abuse the language, its vocabulary
and its grammar, the less expressive it is possible to be – without
having constantly to explain your words. And superfluous explanation
is what we find people doing because the more words we lose to abuse,
the more ambiguous become those words.
That’s all I have to say about that . . . ;-)
Chris
On 1 Mar 2015, at 14:08, Chuck Norcutt
<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't see any problem as Nathan has phrased it. Lunch at
Hilarion's house is unique as is the related pleasure of enjoying
the meal and friends. But the experience is not unique since he's
done it before. How would you rephrase it to separate those things?
IMHO, too much linguistic work is required for a minor point which
caused no confusion in my mind.
Chuck Norcutt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|