AND I AM TELLING U

I’m often asked how I choose what to write about each week. In part I’m inspired by your comments and questions, but I also log errors and trends I notice at work or in my everyday reading. I may see an error once and assume it’s a typo. I may see the same error twice and make a mental note of it. But, as the sinister megalomaniac Auric Goldfinger said in the 1964 film, “Goldfinger,” “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Hence, this week’s enemy – two words, both starting with U. Not too many things are unique and deep down inside, in the "dark night of the soul," as F. Scott Fitzgerald said, most people know it. So, to assuage our guilt, we try to modify the word, referring to things as "truly unique" or sort of unique." The truth is, something is unique or it's not. Still, I recently read that due to its height the Sears Tower in Chicago is "fairly unique." But the Sears Tower – admittedly a tall building –  is still shorter than two other buildings, Taipei 101 and the Petronas Towers, making it, at best, merely unusual.  Likewise, if the 18th-century French writer and philosopher Voltaire was alive today (and working in PR), instead of writing, “Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy,” he might have written, “Utilize, do not abutilize; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.” If the word “use” was good enough for Voltaire, let's be frank, it's good enough for us. Try not to use “utilize” in place of the verb form of “use” (i.e., yooz) because you think it sounds smart, businesslike, or writerly. It’s none of these things; in fact, the two words have a subtle yet important difference in meaning. “Use” means to employ something for its intended or appropriate purpose: Stefan used the hammer to hang the portrait of his grandmother. "Utilize,” the verb form of the obsolete adjective “utile,” means to employ something for a new or unintended purpose, or to make do with an item meant for something else: Phillipa utilized the heel of her Roger Vivier slingback to bang a nail into the wall. Even The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage has an opinion, calling “utilize” a “fancy word for use.” (By the way, it’s called The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage and not The New York Times Manual of Style and Use because in this case the word “usage” refers to the practice of applying punctuation correctly, not the question of whether it’s applied at all.)

Comments

[Robert]

Considering how bad my grammar be, I can’t believe I’m pointing this [missing noun here] out to you. You switch between using quotes and inch marks when quoting (and more than twice; clearly enemy action on your part).

[Greg]

I disagree about qualifying uniqueness. To be unique something must be the only one of its kind, and in that sense it is either unique or it is not. The problem is that you have to qualify what its kind is. If you want to discuss the uniqueness of a sculpture, say, some people might only be interested in its size, others its material, and others its sculptor. Such considerations allow for degrees of uniqueness.

You might make a checklist of every way in which a sculpture can be considered unique. Certainly something which satisfies none of the requirements is not unique, but could you not also say that the more it satisfies the more unique it is? You might argue that is only closer to being unique, but you could always come up with additional properties to check, perpetually putting its uniqueness further away.

The point is that being unique or not is a subjective quality, depending on the set of properties you're interested in. I think in most cases people will not agree on what is unique, since they are using different checklists (and probably evaluating each requirement differently). If you don't (or can't) specify exactly what you're comparing the object against and what your criteria are, qualifying uniqueness is certainly warranted.

[Abraham]

Doesn't usage create meaning? By the time our kids are saying "fairly unique" it won't be because they're wrong, but because "unique" will have taken a new meaning.

This seems even more true for the use/utilize debate. I, too, dislike the word "utilize" to replace "use," but trying to save the distinction seems hopeless. As you write, you should use words that your readers are likely to understand the way you want them to. This differentiation between use and utilize is nice, but hopelessly arcane. It seems to me, for the sake of clarity, the distinction should be given up on, and the word "utilize" should just never be used.

[b collins]

lovely. you strike a great blow for euphony here. "utilize" indeed. and from goldfinger and voltaire.

[Jeffrey Treem]

I would say that by virtue of being the third tallest building in the world (among millions) and tops in the U.S., the Sears Tower qualifies as unique. The issue is that unique is a characterization based on context. Something is only unique related to those things you are considering it against. Among my friends, my humor and good looks make me unique, but sadly among the general population I am merely above average.

[Robin]

With respect to the use of "utilize," resistance is utile!

[Maddie Clark]

I still use the word unique to designate something that is singular, but I know that the definition eventually will expand (if it hasn't already) to include the secondary definition of unique. This is how language develops -- today's errors become tomorrow's rule.

[Sebastian]

Dan, great post. Just one question - "Likewise, if the 18th-century French writer and philosopher Voltaire was..."

shouldn't it be "if... were..." ?

Best
Sebastian

[Dan Santow]

Sorry for the delayed response – I was out of town and to be honest, my mother (whom I was visiting) still has a dial-up – she’s darling, but how archaic does that sound? – and I couldn’t bring myself to go online.

Robert, I see you’re right about the switch between the quotation marks but I think it’s some weird Typepad formatting issue, not really a back-and-forth between inch marks and quotation marks. I write the post each week in Word, usually in 10-point Ariel, and cut and paste it into the space on the Typepad site that hosts my blog.

Greg, I agree that an aspect of something can be unique even if as a whole that thing is not. But I don’t see how that’s qualifying uniqueness. Also, I don’t think something is “more unique” because, say, five things about it are unique verses three things on something else.

Brian, thank you for using the word “euphony.” : )

Jeffrey, while I’ll leave it to others to comment on your looks, I will at least half disagree with you about the Sears Tower. It may be unique in Chicago because it’s our tallest building, but it’s not unique globally, at least height-wise (it may be unique globally due to its ugliness, but I’ll leave that to others, too – to the same aesthetes who dare to comment on your looks, for instance).

[Dan Santow]

Abraham, I agree with you - let's just not use the word "utilize." In PR it's way overutili... er, overused.

[Maddie Clark]

I meant that unique will take on a secondary definition of unusual, not unique!

Sebastian - I think you're referring to another rule that has become outdated; few people still use "were" to indicate the subjunctive.

[Jo]

The reason i love this blog is that it's about standing strong on using words correctly. Accepting "fairly unique" waters down the meaning of this powerful word. I know language evolves, but I think it's lazy and dangerous to just keep broadening the definition of words. We could descend into a world like that described in '1984', where the language becomes meaningless, repressive and dogmatic. Yes, it's that dire!