The English language is great. I’m not ashamed to say that I use it everyday. In fact, my relationship with the English language has lasted so long now that I’m comfortable enough to say I love it. I’m not alone on this sentiment. A majority of Americans have such a high affinity with English that they choose to bypass other tempting romantic languages and exclusively speak it–some even appreciate it so much that they refer to it as “speaking American,” as in: “Why don’t those Mexicans start speaking American? My love for the language though is not unconditional; there are boundaries that can be broached.
Case in point: the parameters behind using the word unique. Now, if I may be permitted to utilize a 5th grader writing technique, Webster’s Dictionary defines unique as “being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.” I have nothing wrong with this definition but I do, however, have a huge beef with how east coast elitists (educated democrats) use this definition as justification for correcting people when they refer to something as being ‘very unique.’ These self-proclaimed grammar police will point out that the word unique inherently means it’s unlike anything else therefore there can’t be degrees of it; it’s either unique or it’s not.
Bullshit.
Example: snowflakes. No two snowflakes are ever the same which warrants them as being unique from each other. But let’s say that one of these snowflakes has a striking resemblance to country music legend Merle Haggard.
Imagine this snowflake landing on your nose!
Not only does this snowflake look just like this country-western pioneer, but as it descends from the sky it plays a muzak version of “Walking on the Sun” by Smash Mouth. And to top it off, once it lands to the ground it explodes into an army of monarch butterflies, majestically flying away into the horizon.
If you witnessed this snowflake would you just refer to it as “unique” or would you say that it is “the most fucking extremely unique” snowflake you’ve ever encountered? Exactly.
Now I’m sure there are some “rational” people out there that would point out that my example is completely contingent in a hypothetical world and that we, in fact, do not live hypothetically. Well, if that’s your rebuttal then that means you don’t believe in miracles as you can’t put limitations on miracles. And I think everybody can agree that if we live in a world devoid of any chance for Merle Haggard snowflakes that play Smash Mouth and transform into butterflies to fall from the sky then what’s the point of existence?
I just want everyone to acknowledge that this is a small flaw in the language. Once we all agree on this I believe we as a people can move on and live the fruitful lives we were intended to have. Flaws can be overlooked; just look at Cindy Crawford. She is beautiful even with that very unique mole on her face.
