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.

[caffeine-fairy.livejournal.com]

And another minor rant - absolutely nothing 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'.)

[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'.

[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.

[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.

[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.