Talk:Sui generis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I don't think databases qualify as "a small class of works".—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])


some guidance on this page for pronunciation would be great :) I would do it, but I don't know how to pronounce it. On the other hand, perhaps it is subject to regional variation which is usually simply split between the US and other English speaking nations, so it would be good to have both. On the other hand, it isn't even English, so <shrug>

i added the 'official' British English pronounciation

As it's latin, I do think the correct pronunciation is "sew-i generis" as opposed to "swee". The "sew" is pronounced the same as the name Sue. The generis part is easy - just pronounce each letter, as in "jeneris".

Many of us have not been so fortunate as to have obtained higher education and so must take our education where we can find it. Wikipedia is one of those places. The "pronunciation guide" left me more confused then when I started reading. I'm guessing something along the lines of "swee john-a-ree" but I could be off by miles.

Indeed there seems to be some confusion on Latin pronounciation. Latin is a language that didn't change in the last 1600 years, so there cannot be any American or British pronounciation.

The Latin pronounciation of "g" is always like in "good" and not like in "general". However, the expression was popularised in the English language, and therefore commonly used with English pronounciation. I suggest this be clarified on the page. Tang Wenlong (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


It's correct definition is "of its own kind; unlike anything else".

Sui generis and SCN?[edit]


At present, the European Union is quite unique as an organisation, as currently no other inter-state body matches its level of integration, yet shares its diffusion of sovereignty.

However, if the proposed South American Community of Nations develops as proposed (which is not exactly a sure thing, it must be said) would the Sui generis term be less valid when referrign to the EU, or would any deviance between a developed SCN and EU still allow for the term to be valid?

--Nerroth 10:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I do not understand the question. Can you ask it another way please. David91 12:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think one should apply the term to the EU. The idea that you can describe it as being "somewhere between" two other things contradicts that it is unique in its characteristics. The EU is a blend of other things. Just being different is not sui generis.
I think the EU is at the moment a historically unique body; but time will tell whether it remains the sole example of its kind, or if it is the harbinger of a new type of entity. SACN, AU (African Union), etc., cannot be remotely compared to the EU in its current state, but may well develop to a similar level of integration in due course. Now, if that happens, it would then be reasonable to ask how similar or different they are in their structure to the EU -- certainly, their current plans are heavily EU-influenced, but we will have to see what happens in practice -- and, if they turn out to have sufficiently similar institutional structures to the EU, we might be justified in saying that the EU is no longer sui generis at all, but just the first member of a class of EU-like entities ("continental unions", maybe?) But the answer to that question is probably several decades hence -- until then, its just navel gazing. --SJK (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


This phrase seems to be getting more use lately. I think I first noticed someone use it about 2 years ago and now I hear it quite often. Does anyone know how or why it has been re-injected into the vernacular?

The reason I think is that the Sui Generis organization is being a little more vocal of late. I did actually add an addition to the page, but it was deleted, probably because mine was the only source of it. I'm trying to get more sources to validate it. I know it to be true because I'm a member of it. It's been around for a while, and is a very good thing. I would add that anything to be purporting to be Sui Generis in this manner on the web isn't anything to do with it. Nor are any companies with the name related.

taxonomy example[edit]

Homo sapiens are sui generis in the animal kingdom.


The expression was used by Duke University for the 2000-01 academic year in its Student Brochure. It was like, "Duke University.......Sui Generis (Altogether Unique)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

In the interest of plain speaking[edit]

Is there some reason why the lead avoids using the common phrase, "in a class of its own?" Baon 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it is more vague or less clear. I mean, if someone says something is "in a class of its own", do they mean to say it is so unique that it cannot be classified into other classes (i.e. sui generis)? Or is this some kind of vague advertising claim, like how a prestige car manufacturer might claim that their new car is "in a class of its own"? That new car model may well be in a "class of its own", but you probably wouldn't call it sui generis. The problem with native English phrases is they are more prone to abuse by advertisers and the uninformed, and hence their clarity of meaning suffers -- whereas Latin borrowings (especially the less common ones) are far less likely to be used improperly or by those who don't really understand them, and thus the clarity of their meaning is preserved. --SJK (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Biblical Use[edit]

I know it's used to describe the genre of the gospels in the New Testament (as in, "The Gospels are sui generis as a genre."), as they are unlike other biographies in their basic nature and purpose, and unlike any other genre within Christian scripture. I'll let anyone inclined to include this in the article arue it out with the anti-religious or anti-(for whatever reason) people whether this should be included or not. Will look for references in the meantime. (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut the trivia section.[edit]

You can call it "examples in media" or whatnot in you want, but it's still a trivia section. The article is more than adequate without referencing Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sui generis decisions[edit]

In the EU law there exists a relatively significant category of decisions that are not per se regulated by the treaties, namely, sui generis decisions. They have been a subject of some academical interest as of late. Based on the European Court of Justice's decisions (e.g. Case C-370/07) these decisions have now an official position within EU law. Within the mentioned decision ECJ concludes:

"The Council contends, as its principal argument, that, in the present case, it was not required to state the legal basis of the contested decision inasmuch as the latter is a sui generis decision, designated in German by the term ‘Beschluß’, adopted by the Council in the context of the Community’s external relations, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC. That decision, it argues, must be distinguished from the decision designated by the German word ‘Entscheidung’ and referred to in Articles 249 EC and 253 EC."

And it continues by mentioning the special character of these decision by stating:

"The Council explains that, since the contested decision affects only relations between the Community and the Member States and inter-institutional relations, and as it therefore has no effect on the legal rights and obligations of third parties, such as individuals or companies, the obligation to state reasons serves no purpose since that decision is addressed only to the parties which participated in its adoption. In the same way as the Court found in the AETR judgment, which concerned ‘negotiations by the Council’ for the purpose of concluding an international agreement, the contested decision in the present case is a ‘Beschluß’ and, as such, does not appear on the exhaustive list of measures for which reasons must be given."

Hence, I do think that this particular kind of decision-making procedure ought to be mentioned as part of definition of sui generis (or there should be a separate entry for it). -- (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Meaning in the context of town planning[edit]

The section on town planning does not actually explain the meaning of the term in that context. The section begins: "In British town planning law, many common types of land use are classified in "Use Classes". Change of use of land within a Use Class does not require planning permission; however, changing between certain Use Classes requires planning permission." This text reads as a preamble for an explanation, but the explanation never comes. Instead, some examples are presented, making it clear that the author thinks the above text is an explanation. Rdanbury (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)rdanbury

This section is confusing and seems to be completely at odds with the current legislation. See the summary in Standard Note SN/SC/1301 6 May 2014

[Quote} Not every use of building is put into a use class under this legislation. Examples of these are theatres, hostels providing no significant element of care, scrap yards, petrol stations, nightclubs, launderettes, taxi businesses, amusement centres and casinos. If a building or business is “sui generis” i.e., not in a particular category, or the new use is “sui generis”, then there will need to be a planning application to change the use under the procedures set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Being sui generis does not preclude a change of use, it just means that a planning application has to be made so that the local planning authority can consider the implications of change of use in detail. [Unquote] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

the lead paragraph...[edit]

should probably not be a list.--345Kai (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


This can also be related to The Sui Generist Mind. The structure of the brain within non-neurotypical and neurotypical processes are inherently different. (ed. This sentence does not make sense. Agreement is incorrect, but more significantly, what is meant by saying the structure of the brain WITHIN these functions? Is this a translation error or a conceptual difference of importance that is inadequately explained?)

This comment was on the main article, so I moved it to the talk page. I do not have the expertise to deal with it. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 13:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Intellectual Property Law[edit]

It seems somewhat awkward to have different bullets for law and IP law, as I think the intellectual property usage is just another angle of "unique in its kind" law. Sui generis legislation for intellectual property isn't that different from sui generis cases or authority.

Tentative rewording:

  • law, when a special and unique interpretation of a case or authority is found to be necessary, or when unique qualities or facts warrant idiosyncratic legislative treatment;

Arttechlaw (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Added trade secret to list of common IP types. Poor trade secret is always left out from all the fun parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nature of "or" in Law/Statutory[edit]

A problem exists in the clause a conjunctive (X 'and' Y) intention to the legislature even though the list is disjunctive (X 'or' Y)

Legalese assumes the word "or" to be inclusive, that is "A or B or BOTH", from conj. either; in the alternative. The boolean exclusive sense "XOR" is rendered "A or B but not BOTH".

So the entire sentence here is senseless as it stands; and if one corrects it, there is no need for this example. Actually, the entire paragraph is unlikely to be useful, it's a bad example. The conjunction "and" used here in its boolean sense does not, per se, introduce vagueness. We could usefully choose a different example in the first para, which may well eliminate the need for misusing the word "or". One notes that the word "unlawful" is not capable of misinterpetation, it has no ambiguity. Of course, coupled with "malicious" in certain ways, there is room for debate: but the use of "and" notes solely that the action was primarily against the law, and secondarily it was done in order to harm some thing or person. Now if the conjunction "or" had been used... (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it. (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Confusing double negative[edit]

Under the Sociology heading the second sentence reads:

"It is not something that is not thought to have been created because it is imbedded in everyone's way of thinking and being."

The use of the double negative here is confusing and awkward I think. Does this mean "It is something that is thought to have been created...?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whimsycrat (talkcontribs) 18:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)