It’s truly the greatest threat to our present society — much mo’ than Hairpiece, fascist corporatism, or Google searches that give me stupid listicles ‘stead o’ useful info.
A common grammar “rule” is that unique can’t be modified with words like “very” or “mo'” ’cause “unique” means “1 o’ a kind”.1 E’en in the comments o’ that page people hand-wrung ’bout how it’s been used fore’er, & 1 person argued that everything could be described as “unique”.
Oddly, I have the opposite conclusion: the word “unique” has no logical meaning ’cause nothing could truly be described as “unique”.
¿Want proof? ¿Can we describe something with English words? Then it can be put in a set o’ multiple things that can be described with English words, & therefore can’t be “unique”, ’cause it shares something with an infinite # o’ other things. The paradox o’ “unique” is that if it’s possible to describe something as “unique”, then by definition, it can’t be. It’s like the sentence, “This sentence is false” or, inversely, a set o’ all sets that don’t contain themselves.
If one were to argue that “unique” only means 1 o’ some kind, not all kinds, then the argument that “unique” can’t be modified is obviously false: something that is 1 o’ a kind in mo’ kinds than something else is unquestionably mo’ “unique” than that something else. ‘Course, “kind” is so vague that there could be infinite #s ( indeed, a kind is a thing itself, which should please Lisp fans immensely ), & thus it’d be impossible to test all o’ the kinds something could be ‘lone in, & thus it’d be impossible to prove that anything is mo’ “unique” than anything else; but we’re simply talking theoretics, not facts.
A better grammar rule is to avoid the word “unique” ’cause it invokes a different bad habit o’ writing: sensational language & o’eruse o’ superlatives &mash; ‘specially since it’s so oft invoked in a narcissistic way to describe oneself. After all, there’s nothing mo’ trite than calling oneself unique.
