Language desk
< April 28	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 29

Are there non-gradable adjectives?

Are there non-gradable adjectives (positive, comparative and superlative)? I've seen that up and down are such adjectives. Is that correct? are there another ones?93.126.116.89 (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fucking" immediately came to mind.

Down can kinda be graded with "more down," "most down." That doesn't work with "up" or "fucking." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional term for such adjectives is "incomparable", even though I don't see it mentioned at comparison (grammar) or in a Wikipedia article of its own. ("Uncomparable" is also used and avoids confusion with the principal meaning of "incomparable".) However, whether they really exist is open to debate. Prescriptivists like to complain when people say things like "more unique", but the fact is that they do. (As to "up", I suggest that if you're feeling a bit depressed today, maybe your mood will tomorrow be more up.) And if you can't think of a sentence where you'd use "more" with a certain adjective, maybe that's just a failure of your imagination. Here's one article discussing the point. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other kinds of non-gradable adjectives. Example: "sixth". And there are many adjectives that are gradable when used in one or more senses but are not gradable when used in one or more other senses: for example, "phonetic"; the spelling of German is more phonetic than that of English, but the notation "/ˈɪŋlᵻʃ/" is written in phonetic script, not a *"very phonetic script". -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The classic example is "pregnant", as in, you can't be a little bit. The British Council offers "married" and "wooden" as its examples of non-gradable adjectives [1], though you could always be a smart alek and criticise the actor's rather wooden performance. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"very pregnant" is not uncommon, meaning that the pregnancy is well advanced. 86.191.58.157 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like a joke. When you're "very" pregnant, you are actually no more pregnant than you were the day of conception. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is by no means always meant as a joke. 86.191.58.157 (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the terms "more pregnant" and "less pregnant" could refer to how far along a woman is in gestation. It's perfectly cromulent. The joke Bugs is refering to is the idea of being "almost pregnant", which is actually impossible, since fertilization is a singular event. --Jayron 32 16:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As in "very far along" in pregnancy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here in NZ, we would say "heavily pregnant". Don't know about other places. Akld guy (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would make more sense. But English doesn't always make sense, especially in regional colloquialisms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Adjective#Comparison (next-to-last paragraph) and Comparison (grammar)#Absolute adjectives. Loraof (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's at the latter link is well intended and not far off the mark; but as it stands, it's odd (as well as unsourced for two years). Quote: Many prescriptive grammars and style guides include adjectives for inherently superlative qualities to be ungradable. Uh, but "superlative" implies gradability (or anyway does so to me). I do realize that many prescriptive grammars are potty, but there (usually) are limits to their pottiness. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does a chamber pot have to do with grammar? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps chamber pots have about as much to do with pottiness as grammar has to do with such people as Nevile Gwynne. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about words like "premier" or "best" or the like? "It was the best apple I ever ate", "best" is an adjective, but "more best" or "most best" or "less best" doesn't work. --Jayron 32 16:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Best" is a superlative, so it has the "grading" already baked in. 92.233.138.253 (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is not itself gradable. It's all how you slice it. --Jayron 32 16:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Best" is not considered non-gradable since it's a part of the synthetic adjectives in which irregular adjectives changed in each grade (good > better > best). 93.126.116.89 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. "Premier" is not, however, part of that set. It is a stand-alone adjective that lacks gradability. --Jayron 32 16:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It means "first", and you can't have "most first" or even "more first". 92.233.138.253 (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about positional adjectives like "middle" and "median" and the like? You can't be "middler" than something else. What about "average". Can you be "the averagest"? --Jayron 32 16:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that many adjectives related to measure are not comparable, for example "cubic". 86.16.15.70 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Unique" often gets the adjectives most or very, but there is no degree of uniqueness. Unique means "the only example of its kind". It doesn't mean rare or scarce. Akld guy (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could "very unique" be used to mean "very special/characteristic/distinct"? --Theurgist (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is often used that way, to the chagrin of us pedants. It is a very pedant-chagrinizing expression. But then, we inhabit a world of chagrin these days. The only alternative would be not to care anymore, but that would be the intellectual equivalent of blowing one's brains out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be the intellectual equivalent of understanding the way in which languages change and evolve, which is a far more intellectual exercise than assuming that the world is static, and that everything you memorized one day in school 40 years ago must remain true forever. --Jayron 32 01:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unique means the only example of its kind. No if, buts or maybe. Akld guy (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would, of course, depend on usage. At some point in history it may have meant that. It doesn't mean it is destined to always mean that. After all, you aren't using the same words that Beowulf was written in. I'm not saying you're right, and I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that the usage of the word determines its meaning, and if there are usages that mean something different, then they mean something different. --Jayron 32 02:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EO says the usage "unique" to mean "uncommon" has been around since the mid 19th century.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhhh. Bugs! You know that pedantry is impervious to things like evidence and facts. Shame on you. --Jayron 32 02:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That link says the usage meaning "uncommon" is erroneous. Akld guy (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. Hence I didn't need to say it myself. :) But within that stretched usage, you could have "more unique" and "most unique". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're debating the meaning of erroneous. Do you ever stop? You're in a lot of trouble at WP:ANI about your conduct here. Just STFU. Akld guy (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I debating the meaning of erroneous? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, I would never deny that some people do use words erroneously, to mean things they were never meant to mean, and I would never deny that this stems from pure ignorance. The evidence for this mass ignorance is abundant - that's the 'evidence and facts' you mention. Next you'll be telling me it's fine to use 'their', 'there' and 'they're' interchangeably at whim, because an undeniably huge number of people interchange them all the time, changing their/there meaning in the process. Is 'there' considered a 3rd person plural possessive pronoun now? Is 'their' considered a preposition now? Your [sic] an idiot if you think that. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also never said that people didn't make errors. I only said that language is not static. Whether any particular usage is an error, or represents a genuine shift in meaning, is left for other to decide, but it cannot be that 100% of the language you learned when you were a child must remain immutably the same forever. You've established a false dichotomy that I never said existed; that because I noted that languages evolve, that must mean that I think errors cannot exist. I have never said such a thing, and your refutation is a straw man. Quite frankly, Jack, you are more intelligent than that, and I find it below your character to stoop to such lows of intellectual dishonesty. You know what I meant, and I was not trying to win any battle that you apparently felt like fighting. I certainly am never interested in winning anything. I only wish to see people learn more things. That you would attempt to "win" such a battle by setting up statements I never made, to then fight those imaginary statements as though that would somehow make you "win" something, or make you "better" than me, is just disappointing from someone your age and maturity. --Jayron 32 01:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking straw men, I never claimed that "100% of the language [I] learned when [I was] a child must remain immutably the same forever", or anything like it. So we're square on that score. I was simply responding to your claim that "unique" now means things that it once did not. Who says it means these things? Dictionaries can record some misuses, but they do not sanction anything. Some people use it to mean "amazing, awe-inspiring" or similar. To them, I suppose it means these things; but does that mean it has to mean these things for the rest of humanity? If so, how come a small minority gets to change the language for the entire anglosphere, and the majority just has to suck it up, adopt the new way, and move on? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the strawman thing, but I also never said "that "unique" now means things that it once did not" You'll find above, with my signature, the statement " I'm not saying you're right, and I'm not saying that you're wrong," What I meant by that was " I'm not saying you're right, and I'm not saying that you're wrong," I'm sorry if that confused you. Regarding your statement "a small minority gets to change the language for the entire anglosphere," I also never said that. Words take on different meanings in different contexts, and one must be aware of their context in order to understand those meanings. Just to take another example, let's look at a simple word like "hydrated" If I am sitting with a group of chemists, discussing chemistry things, and I claim some substance is hydrated, I mean a solid substance with individual water molecules covalently bonded to other atoms in the crystal matrix. That does not mean that chemists have decided that other uses of the term, such as what my nutritionist means when they say I should stay hydrated. That there is a meaning which is context dependent doesn't mean that the people who use that word in that context have "decided for the rest of humanity" that is the only meaning. Likewise, with the word "unique", I would expect that people would understand the usage of "unique" may vary depending on context; for example when it is used in a formal register or a casual one, whether the audience is a bunch of teenagers hanging out with friends, or a person writing an academic paper. Neither one has determined anything for all of humanity, and the existence of a meaning in a certain context has no bearing on a different meaning in another context. The difference between a chemist's meaning of "hydrated" and a nutritionists meaning of "hydrated" is not functionally different than the difference in meaning between the use of "unique" in a formal register and in a casual register, and the use of the casual meaning is not wrong in those casual contexts, even if it is wrong in formal contexts. To claim otherwise is to claim that the chemist can call the nutritionists use of the word "hydrated" wrong in nutritionist contexts. --Jayron 32 12:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are none that are iungradable in terms of grammar, there are some that are ungradable in practice because their semantics do not refer to a gradable property. "Infinite" would be one for example where you can grammatically say "the universe is less infinite than human stupidity", but which due to the semantics of the adjective the statement becomes infelicitous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm — is ℵ₁ "more infinite" than ℵ₀? I had never considered the question before, that I recall. Now that I have, I guess I would say no; it is larger, but not "more infinite". But it wasn't instantly obvious to me. --Trovatore (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I (non-native speaker) find the line sung by Depeche Mode "Words are very unnecessary" both unusual and beautiful. --Theurgist (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]