Uniquity

[undyingking]

Our quiz streak has come to an end, or (as I prefer to see it) been interrupted -- after winning the Copdock pre-school one, the last one at the Nelson (they concentrate on food instead during the summer), and the Neighbourhood Watch one, we only ran-up at the Dove beer festival quiz.

I'd like to say (although it isn't true) that this was because we were musing over a curiosity of usage that popped up in one of the earlier questions. See what you make of it!

The question was "What is unique about the Edradour whisky distillery?"

And the answer was "It's the smallest distillery in Scotland."

Now this made me feel quite uneasy, but I'm not sure why. Clearly being the smallest does in a sense make it unique, in that there can be only one that is the smallest, and this is that one. But it seems to me that "unique" should require more than that.

Thinking about it, I think that for "unique" to be satisfying, it must be a quality that only one thing possesses, but that others could do -- they just happen not to. Eg. Edradour might be the only distillery with red roof tiles, or the only one owned by a cat, or the only one that begins with "e".

So things like "the smallest" which is just one extreme of a continuum along which they all lie, don't count. Nor does any other quality of which there must always be exactly one example -- this seems to me like a "trivial uniqueness", for which there ought to be a different word.

[Poll #1195623]

Comments

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say it being the smallest makes it unique, maybe not even if it only had one still.
Something like "What is special about the distillery?" would have been more appropriate, I guess.

[chrisvenus]

I think "what is notable" might have been a better way of asking the question than unique. I think my problem with it is that if you use logic than that you can say "What is unique about foo distillery?" "Its the nth smallest one in scotland" or something. That is equally unique but at the same time trivial. I think you really have to be looking at a property where more than one item can hold the same value really.

[venta.livejournal.com]

What he said. Notable, or remarkable, or even distinctive, but not unique.

I like the idea that to be unique you have to possess a property which others could have, but don't/choose not to. So for anything where there can be definition only be one (like the smallest, largest, etc) unique is not an appropriate word.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

anything where there can be definition only be one

Highlander distillery?

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

"Its the nth smallest one in scotland"

Aha, yes, good example!

[caffeine-fairy.livejournal.com]

And another minor rant - absolutely nothing is "very unique".

[theo]

or everything is "very unique".

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

I don't like the usage.

Thinking about it, part of the reason why not is because of a programming-related mindset. I'm inclined to use the word unique in this way to refer to a property of a thing. But "smallest" isn't a property of a thing, because it can be lost without changing the thing itself.

For example, this line of reasoning fails...

* It is known that thing A is unique because P(A) is true.
* We add a new thing B to the environment such that P(B).
* Now neither A nor B is unique in satisfying P(X), because P(A) and P(B) hold.

(Edited to fix typo 'is' -> 'in'.)

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure there are many properties in the conversational world which would count as "definitively" unique in that sense.

The "only distillery owned by a cat" type of uniqueness would fail just as badly as the "smallest" type.

(If I understand you right?)

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

The "only distillery owned by a cat" type of uniqueness would fail just as badly as the "smallest" type.

No, not at all. If a new distillery opens which is also owned by a cat then - critically - the first one is still owned by a cat. (Because ownership is a property of a distillery.)

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Aha, ISWYM.

(edited for typo(!))

[cleanskies.livejournal.com]

If you can get whiskey from the only distillery owned by a cat, I want some.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Dalwhinnie is owned by a horse (possibly).

[celestialweasel.livejournal.com]

I would say 'special', too.

[ibarhis.livejournal.com]

There is no way that being the smallest makes it unique - that is an appalling use of the word!

Unique would be that it was the only distillery in a particular place or on a particular island, or using a particular water source... or even owned by a cat, or a religious community or a Japanese conglomerate...

Being smallest is the answer to Which is the smallest distillery, or which of a, b & c is the smallest?

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

Hm. *Thinks*

Perhaps this feels wrong because 'smallest' is not a quality - the quality is 'small', and there are many small distilleries.

*thinks*

No, I think it's more than that. I don't think 'small' can be unique even if there's only one small one and lots of big ones. Perhaps then it's the fact that 'small' is comparative. I think that must be it. You could just about say that a distillery was unique because it was the only one to have a footprint of less than 100 sq ft. That still wouldn't be very meaningful (unless perhaps all the other distilleries had a bigger footprint which was exactly the same size as each other because distilleries are built according to a set of rules, or because they were all built in a different era, in which case the uniqeness refers to more than just the size), but it doesn't make me feel so icky as 'smallest'.

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

I think perhaps also for the question to feel right all the other distilleries must be similar in the way in which they differ from the unique one. If the has a red tile roof, this only makes it unique if all the others have, say, thatched roofs. Or if they all have grey tiled roofs. But if they all have tiled roofs but each is a different colour, then the red tiled roof isn't unique any more, because in they're all unique in the same sense. Though it could be, perhaps, that they all have grey tiles or black tiles except for this one, in which case unique is ok.

Language is interesting. I have many conversations about this kind of stuff with Damian, who, not being a native Spanish speaker, is endlessly fascinated by English usage, and constantly asking me to explain when we say one thing and when we say another very similar thing, and what makes the difference. Last night we were talking about the difference between a 'glint' and a 'twinkle' in someone's eye. The other day it was the difference between 'turning up' and 'showing up'.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

they're all unique in the same sense

Hmm,interesting, I'm not sure if I agree about this. I think that if they all have different-coloured roofs, I would still be OK to say that each of them is unique in being the only blue one etc. (But clearly it's a non-interesting type of uniqueness.)

The reason being that say you have 100 distilleries, and 99 or them are blue, 1 is red: clearly here the red one is unique. Or if all 100 are different colours, then in your system the red one is not unique. But what about the cases between these extremes? -- if 98 are different colours but 2 are blue, is the red one unique or not? If 50 are different colours and 50 are blue? Etc. It would seem hard to avoid either absurdum or an abitrary grey area of crossover.

Mm, answering non-English speakers' questions about it makes you realize how complex and subtle these meaning shades can be. I miss Swiss friend Ori for that, she speaks several European languages fluently so was great at suggesting culturo-etymological reasons for variations.

[jackfirecat.livejournal.com]

'Gah- ' box was closest to my view, which was that I hadn't particularly been aware of this until you mentioned it, but would then agree with what you said. Tautology is implicit in 'smalllest is unique' and therefore not unique propper.

[fractalgeek.livejournal.com]

"What fact uniquely identifies this distillary" does not feel so bad.

Size is an attibute of comparison, so "smallest" seems wrong.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Size is an attibute of comparison, so "smallest" seems wrong.

Mm, that's what I felt... although "it's the only one that's less than 243 sq m in area" would also have been unsatisfying.

[crowleycrow.livejournal.com]

Your poll left out one possible answer: Your own analysis was perspicuous and undoubtedly correct: to be "the largest" or "the smallest" or "the smelliest" is not to be unique. Was it merely modesty that kept you from putting that on? Without it I couldn't submit an answer.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Not so much modesty as subconscious ego sabotage.

[davefish.livejournal.com]

Only in the context of a beautiful and unique snowflake.

[queenortart.livejournal.com]

Substitute special / notable and that works :)

[secondhand-rick.livejournal.com]

The correct answer is that it's the only single malt whisky I don't like.

Oh, and it also happens to be hearthfire's favourite.