I just got back from taking a new test drive of the new Hummer H2, which for those of your just tuning in, is a civiliian only model hummer produced in conjunction with GM and marketed by GM.

My sister rolled the family bronco last week on a rural road after a blowout, and after doing a complete 360 back to upright, came out with a scratch on the back of her head that didn't even require stiches. If they were still selling them new, I suspect we'd have the new model by now...

So, being in the market for a new Real SUV, we decided to make the trip to test drive the latest and greatest offering the H2, and I was suitably impressed at what they've done... The ride is as smooth as a sedan all the way up to 80mph on the freeway, but the thing is massive, and unfortunatly has small windows which make visitibility dificult. It's got far more room inside than an orginal hummer, and has all the creature comforts you'd expect in a $50,000 SUV. They've kept true to the hummer brand, and it looks to be a very competent 4 wheel drive, with very low gearing options, and high ground clearance. They lack the ability to inflate and deflate the tires from inside the vehicle, but for half the price of the orginal, something's gotta go.

I'm sold, and hoping that my dad is too, as I'd love to be able to steal it on weekends when I come home to visit....

Matthew

hummer

[beavis] He said "hummer"! [/beavis]

http://www.suck.com/daily/99/05/20/daily.html

although with the Curse of the Three-Year-Old Suck, naturally none of the links work

Peter

Have you guys that drive these massive beasts ever considered what would happen to the occupants of a smaller car if you hit them ?

(sorry, I'm staying in the US for a 10 days and I can't quite get used to the size of the things people think are cars around here)

Can you name the truck with four-wheel drive
Smells like steak, and seats thirty-five?
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down.
It's the country-fried truck endoresed by a clown
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Hey, hey!
Twelve yeards long, two lanes wide,
Sixty-five tons of American Pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with her super high-beams.
She's a squirrel-squashin', deer-smackin' drivin' machine.
Canyonero! Canyonero! Canyonero
Whoa, Canyonero! Whoa!

People don't care. All they care about is protecting themselves, despite the fact that SUVs have been shown to, more often than not, be more dangerous to be in than a ``regular'' car. For reference, see the original post where the Bronco flipped over because a tire blew out.

I wish people would realize this and go buy a Volvo, for God's sake. (Okay, so Volvos aren't what they used to be, but you get my point.)

Oh, the other major reason people in the US buy SUVs is to keep up with the Joneses. In fact, that's probably a more significant reason than safety.

Oh man, that was a bad episode....

See, now. Are you thinking of the one where Marge gets an SUV? 'Cause that wasn't a very good episode. But that song was in the one where Krusty becomes George Carlin for a while. And that one, I thought, was pretty good.

The marge SUV one is what I'm referring to. The only funny part is where home discovers the car is the "F Series." The lipstick cigarette lighter is very funny.

I thought the episode was too short and unfunny.

I have heard a statistic that you're more likely to be killed by being the "other car" in an accident with an SUV than you are being killed by a drunk driver. That is, SUV drivers are more dangerous than drunk drivers. I heard it on the radio from a talk show host and it wasn't attributed to any specific source, so it could be B.S., but it seems quite plausible to me. Leaves one to imagine the effect of a drunk SUV driver...

The reason for the vast popularity of SUV's is directly tied to the need of families for room plus the desire of men never to be seen in a minivan.

Wait a minute! Was that song even in the marge one? I remember the Krusty one now. I remeber that he "sold out" to do the commercial for the Canyonero. Then they wouldn't allow him back in the trendy comedy club.

What was the name of Marge's SUV?

Frankly, many Americans are amazed at the size of these things that people drive here. Thankfully, I don't know anyone who owns a Ford Excursion, or I fear I'd have the uncontrollable urge to smack them upside the head.

I'm sorry, but I must ask why you want another SUV. Frankly, I'm amazed the thing was able to spin the 360 without flipping earlier. I mean, I'm glad your sister is okay and all, but I've always felt that these aren't the best cars.

I mean honestly, most people are driving these things because it's a fad and they look cool (kinda). Very few people are using them as originally intended. Not to mention that they are the new soccer mom car. In my hometown, there is an abundance of not only soccer moms driving these things, but short soccer moms driving them. Nothing's funnier than a 5'4" woman behind the wheel of an Explorer.

I'm not really the one to speak, though. I've always been more practical than most people. Hell, I'm 22 and I drive a freaking minivan. But then again my minivan has a sleeker look, an empeg, a navigation system, and a 200HP engine. Of course, even edmunds admits the minivan image, which is unfortunate, because of many things:

1) The Honda Odyssey (my baby), handles far better than nearly any SUV
2) it has more cargo space than any consumer vehicle on the market (well, it did in 2002, but other minivans may have passed it now). This includes the Excursion, and the H2. My van has 68% more space than the H2
3) much less expensive. So SUV drivers enjoy spending more for less. I just don't get it.

I owned a Land Rover Discovery. It was nice. Well built, very sturdy, felt like I could go anywhere. But on every highway exit, I felt like I needed to go 20 mph so I wouldn't tip. It was simply an impractical car. Even while I was driving my '97 Discovery, I wished my family still had out '90 Oldsmobile Silhouette.

Time to take a little visit

The Canyonero makes appearances in both of those episodes. And probably cameo appearances in others.

Compare:

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/AABF10

vs.

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/5F10

Nothing's funnier than a 5'4" woman behind the wheel of an Explorer.

That is so true!

And what happened to the station wagon?

Have you noticed that there's now a commercial advertising a station wagon and the shtick is that people following it cannot come up with a term to describe it? Ever since the first time I saw it, I was screaming at the TV ``It's a station wagon!''

And, no, the other people in the psycho ward don't look at me as if I'm crazy.

Nothing's funnier than a 5'4" woman behind the wheel of an Explorer.

I'd argue that there's nothing scarier. Because, 95% of the time, in my experience, at the same time that she's trying to peek over the steering wheel, she's also putting on makeup, talking on the phone, and either swatting at her kids or ignoring them while letting them crawl all over her. And that assumes that there's not a cat or toy dog sitting on top of her head.

There's a toy dog on her head?

but yeah, I know what you mean. This country generally has some very bad drivers. In the past two days (rush hours of last night and this morning), I've seen two people do the stupidest things I've ever seen someone do in a car. I so wish I could describe these manuevers, but it would take a lot of space and nobody's interested anyway Just take my word for it that they were the stupidest things I've ever seen done in an automobile.

And yes, on commutes in the morning there's the regular peopleputting on makeup, shaving, reading the paper. The things people do....

EPA fuel economy: 11 mpg city/14 mpg highway (estimated).
32 gallon tank.

christ.

ah yeah, but with gas only 1.35 a gallon thats not even $50
hugh in-effecient SUVs for everyone yeah!!!!

matthew, your sister is lucky
one of the design flaws in the bronco was its narrow track which caused it to flip quite easily
they are still selling the bronco , it is now called the exploder....sorry explorer, which has a slight wider track
but as history has shown us still quite capable of flipping

Have you guys that drive these massive beasts ever considered what would happen to the occupants of a smaller car if you hit them ?

Death... And I assume that's why when I changed my daily driver vehicle from the Dodge RAM truck to the Dodge Neon, my insurance rates went down drastically. Insurance rates of those that drive large vehicles are higher than those that drive compacts. Why am I penalized for driving a vehicle that will protect me from death better than a small vehicle that won't? Because it's harder to sue the insurance companies when you're dead... Suck the beast drivers dry with high rates since chances are they'll live longer.
I drive my beast to tow my boat that weighs more than the Neon. What I really want to know is why do people think a 6000+ pound truck and trailer can stop in the same distance as a compact car? It can't, even with a compact car underneath it...

How do you like your RAM? My son wants to buy one (with help). Do you have a 4x4? If so, how has that held up?

Yes, most people that drive SUV's don't need them, but others do. Our familly has had an SUV since we owned a '76 K5 Blazer, so it's not a passing fad with us. My dad is a veterinarian, and has needed to move everything from dead great danes to live sick sea lions. I've got many great memories of taking the bronco camping on dirt roads in Death Valley, miles from any pavement or people...

I personally ride horses, and we're in the process of buying a horse trailer. This is either going to require a large SUV, or a large pick up. Seeing as we don't need an open bed, a pickup is a waste of space for us.

Now the hummer is Wretched Excess, as I stated... But it's the only real SUV they're still selling -- the rest are all soccer mom cars.

Matthew

It's absolutely true. Some people do need SUVs. The Suburban was originally made to help farmers and other folks that lived in the sticks to go to town and get supplies. Thus the name ``Suburban'', before it gathered its current connotation of ``in town, but not downtown''.

That, in fact, is one of my lesser problems with the whole thing. Now that they all have DVD players built into them and lipstick holders, etc., and are being sold at 500% profits, the folks that really need them are often unable to afford them. They used to be just plain old pickup trucks with lids.

I would have less problem with them if a different license were required to drive them. Or, hell, if any body were ever required to drive adequately in order to get a driver's license in the first place.

If you are goin to buy a 4x4 get a 2nd generation ram. That are the best 4wd still out there, if you ask me, I have had 6, loved every one of them. I have driven Chevies, and Fords. They Dont compare, the only other trucks I like are toyotas, but only as a compact truck.

Im agree completely the Hummer H2 and the H1 along with various other vehicles are the last true breed of SUV. I had my doubts about the H2 until I actually saw one in person. its just a lluxury version of the H1 with lots of different styling points, but they included most of the good stuff along with it.

I do admit some people need them. If you want to tow something there's definitely more power a truck-bed car than a car one. In that case I wouldn't put a minivan above them.

Although I couldn't help but wonder, wouldn't it be easier for your dad the veterinarian to haul animals in a minivan? There's more capacity and it's lower to the ground. It would seem pretty logical to me...

In reply to:

---

How do you like your RAM? My son wants to buy one (with help). Do you have a 4x4? If so, how has that held up?

---

I nearly got a Ram as my first car - I got a Vauxhall Nova in the end which most UKers will attest to being a pile of crap. I quickly dumped it and got a 2.8 Camaro as my next car but changed it for the 5.0 IROC shortly afterwards and haven't noticed a difference in my fuel bill. Yes it costs a lot living in the UK, but ripping the tarmac up leaving the office car park more than makes up for it - they are also incredibly rare and it makes a good conversation starter.

I've got an ex-police B&W Caprice on a boat from Jacksonville right now (to be a second car) - should be great fun reverse-parking at Sainsbury's!! I only saw one for real last week and they are f'ing huge!

Gareth
PS. Insurance is dirt cheap on American vehicles over here - my insurance bill went *down* from the Nova substantially.

In reply to:

---

PS. Insurance is dirt cheap on American vehicles over here - my insurance bill went *down* from the Nova substantially.

---

How cheap are we talking here? I'm 23 and get f*cked in the ass over my insurance and I want Golf GTI so I expect the premiums to get ever higher!

I'm currently getting farked for $200/month for my civic si.

I'm currently getting farked for $200/month for my civic si.

That wouldn't have anything to do with this would it?

tanstaafl.

Alright guys. I take offense at 5'4" being considered short I guess I'll have to wear spiked high-heels to the meet so people can see me. And I hate being thought of as a soccer mom driving my mini-van, it's a work van damnit full of equipment and my mountain bike. I may take a cat to the vet occasionally in it but no kids ride in it

I do find the ride to be comfortable and enjoyable in it, especially now with my empeg and great sounding system and I am glad it's at least a V-6 and not a whimmpy V-4.

It's just funny to see a tiny woman commanding such a huge machine. The even funnier thing (not ha-ha funny) is the fact that it is usually commanding them rather than the other way around.

On the other hand, outside the context of the car, short is sexy.

On the other hand, outside the context of the car, short is sexy.

Ok, all is forgiven now

mmmmmm.... could beeeee....

Now the hummer is Wretched Excess, as I stated... But it's the only real SUV they're still selling -- the rest are all soccer mom cars.

...and which Sport or Utility would that be? It's a Military Utility Vehicle. Designed for getting over extreme terrain fast for the sport of killing people, or the utility of setting things up so that other people can kill people more easily. (basically). Ok, so maybe the civilian version could be aimed at paintballers. Yeah, maybe it's the ultimate off-roader, but the term SUV was coined specifically to market the 'soccer-mum cars', and not the Hummers.

Yeah, maybe it's the ultimate off-roader,

Feh. It's not even the ultimate off-roader. That'd be the unimog. It's even a Mercedes Benz.

Okay, sorry about that

Actually, I know an American/Asian family with four daughters who all have a rigorous schedule of after school activities, from swimming to (you guessed it) soccer to skeet shooting

The mother in this family is an Asian woman of no more than 5'2", and they've got a nice big Suburban. I can hardly see her head when I'm sitting in my van.

And hey, you drive a minivan, so you're cool in my book. Besides, my girlfriend isn't much taller than you (she drives a Camry)

I'm surprised to get this far down the thread and nobody has mentioned the Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer, as supplied to rhe British army, not only available as a 4x4, but also as a 6x6: Automatic, L or Rh drive, available also as a camper van (ideal for safaris), ambulance and fire engine - get the first one on your block.

Goes anywhere, except, hopefully the Middle East - and I hope the Hummer guys, don't have to either.

I think, actually, Steyr-Puch did a fair bit more than breath on the Unimog!

Talking of off road vehicles, anybody know of a kit or plans to build a model WW2 DUKW, I've been wanting to build a radio controlled one for years.

...the term SUV was coined specifically to market the 'soccer-mum cars', and not the Hummers.

I disagree. I saw this appellation many years before our national SUV crisis. I know that the local paper has used that term for at least fifteen years in the classified section. In fact, if I remember correctly, it's the term the NC DMV uses to classify such vehicles, and I think they include pickup trucks in it, too. Of course, all of those sources spell it out.

Oh no. I've been Bitt'ed.

Leaves one to imagine the effect of a drunk SUV driver...

I didn't think there was much left to imagine in this sad vein. A recent local case in point.

The hard-to-fathom popularity of SUVs? Well, folks who commute to work by car get sick of following them (with the attendant restricted visibility) and exercise the "couldn't beat them so I joined them" option. IMO, they'll remain popular until they are made more unattractive by higher direct or indirect (gasoline) taxes. Then only the very well-to-do will enjoy their loftier view of the highway.

Hey, I could be wrong....

nobody has mentioned the Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer

I was thinking of it, but couldn't remember the name. There's a guy up in Big Bear, California that sells them. I first saw one when I went to a race up there. If I hadn't just bought a Frontier, I'd have taken one on a test-drive and bought one. They had the 710M and 710K -- I'd have taken the 710M, since it's a convertible -- perfect for sunny California.

Parking would be a bit of a problem, though. If I ever get a commuter vehicle, like a motorcycle or some cheapo two seater, I'll consider getting one for camping/biking/etc...

Oh, and for what it's worth, Rolling Stone magazine says it's better than the new Hummer...

Parking wouldn't bother you, I live in little ol' England with its little roads and I've never had a problem parking a 23ft. motorhome in any town yet.

Mind you, I'm passing through Cambridge tuesday, where they are really tough on the motorist. The Empeg/Rio guys can sigh with relief if I haven't come by and asked for an electric hook-up and a tap for a brew by Wednesday morning!

Parking wouldn't bother you, I live in little ol' England with its little roads and I've never had a problem parking a 23ft. motorhome in any town yet.

On the contrary... parking would bother me. The parking space I get with my apartment is only a couple feet wider than my truck, and is just barely long enough for the truck to fit into. As it is, I have to let passengers out before I pull into my space. If I parked in the exact center of my space, we'd be stuck in the truck forever, unable to open the doors wide enough to get out. At work, half the spaces in the lot are for compact cars, which, given a liberal dose of vaseline and a good amount of forward/back/forward/back straightening, I can just barely squeeze into. The other half of our parking spaces are barely a foot wider.

If I lived out in a slightly less urban area than Los Angeles, then no, parking probably wouldn't bother me too much.

ooo... and bitt's been verbed. congratulations.

--dan.

Remember folks, verbing weirds language.

Nah, language is full of irregular verbs. Bitt fits in that category, no?

Today, I saw an yellow H2 on the highway in Houston (which has got to be the SUV capital of the US). It made me have a ritalin flashback. Did they intend this thing to look like a special ed school bus?

Did they intend this thing to look like a special ed school bus?

I have to admit, I much prefer the styling of the old Hummer... the boxiness made it stand out in the crowd of all the rest of the round cornered vehicles. Not that the size of the thing didn't make it do that anyway...

When I was a kid, my parents met a couple with a newish Bentley on holiday and assumed they were well off. They invited us round for the day and we drove round and round looking for a mansion, only to discover that they lived in the smallest of two bedroom houses.

The garage was so small, that when the guy got the Bentley in, he took a roll of stair carpet from the back seat, unrolled it from the sunroof, across the bonnet/hood to the bumper/fender and climbed out without scratching his precious car.

Where there's a will there's a way!

I didn't think there was much left to imagine in this sad vein. A recent local case in point.

The sad thing is that a Rodeo is quite small as most SUVs go. If that woman had been driving an Explorer, both those girls would be dead, almost certainly.

So much to risk to have a fad car. That's why you've got to get the safest normal car you can get. Hopefully my van, with a bunch of 5-star crash ratings, will protect me as much as possible from the other idiots on the road.

So, umm, you're saying the new model isn't boxy??

(Nothing wrong with boxy though, says former Land Rover FFR owner)

Rob

So, umm, you're saying the new model isn't boxy??

Overall it's still boxy, but they've rounded off nearly all the corners and edges that were very hard edges on the original. It feels and looks more... swoopy (if you will), which detracts from the original aesthetic, IMHO. I really dug the hard linearity of the previous design, as it was really unique.

I really dug the hard linearity of the previous design, as it was really unique.

Sorry -- pet peeve time:

Really? Was it more unique than other unique things?

I know, some people will claim that unique no longer means ``one-of-a-kind'', but, IMO, that's just apologetic.

Really? Was it more unique than other unique things?

Huh? That question doesn't make sense. I was using the word unique to mean "one-of-a-kind". Yeah, every car has a unique design, but look at what they all have in common. Next time you're out on the highway or just in the city, take a look around you. See any mass produced consumer vehicles that don't have every edge tapered and rounded? By not having every edge turned into some sleek contour, the old Hummer was unique.

Perhaps you'd be happier if I restated it as:

I really dug the hard linearity of the previous design, as it was really one-of-a-kind.

Sheesh.

No, I think Bitt's complaining (tongue-in-cheek) about the "Really" part of "Really unique". Either it's one-of-a-kind, or it's not. It can't be "really" one-of-a-kind, any more than it can be "nearly" one-of-a-kind.

Awww, can we not be 'nearly one of a kind' ?? I always reckoned I was almost unique - except for my evil twin, probably

No, I think Bitt's complaining (tongue-in-cheek) about the "Really" part of "Really unique". Either it's one-of-a-kind, or it's not. It can't be "really" one-of-a-kind, any more than it can be "nearly" one-of-a-kind.


But what if you had something that was one of a matching pair, and there was only 2 of them. Wouldn't that be "nearly" one-of-a-kind?

I'd argue that it could be nearly unique, as that implies proximity. But superlatives and comparatives applied to unique are just (IMNSHO) wrong.

Then again, maybe he meant ``really'' as an expression of non-exaggeration, as opposed to a comparative.

I sure do hate English's malleability.

I always reckoned I was almost unique - except for my evil twin, probably

If you're "one in a million" -- that means there are two thousand people in China who are just like you!

tanstaafl.

How do you like your RAM? My son wants to buy one (with help). Do you have a 4x4? If so, how has that held up?

I would buy another RAM over a Ford or Chevy. The only truck I'd replace it with was my old '81 Chevy 4x4, but it kept blowing motors.
I will tell you that the Dodge 360 Magnum motor is great for towing, but gas milage is does not understand. I get 9.8 mpg pulling a 3500# boat. about 11 when just driving. Then again I do have a lead foot...
I have a 98 RAM 4x4 and it has held up well, no problems so far *knock on wood*

I sure do hate English's malleability.

What a singularly unique sentiment!

But what if you had something that was one of a matching pair, and there was only 2 of them. Wouldn't that be "nearly" one-of-a-kind?

No, that would be part of a unique set

pca

Then again, maybe he meant ``really'' as an expression of non-exaggeration, as opposed to a comparative.

Probably. In the past I've been accused of arguing semantics to the detriment of the issue at hand, so I'm just going to agree with whatever makes people happy. All I know is that I've been Bitted. It's like a coming-of-age ceremony in the Empeg community... I've finally been accepted... I belong.



Cheers

I used to have a Bronco. It was my first vehicle and the 302 got about 9.5 mpg, but the fuel injectors leaked. Then the Borg Warner transfer case went out while I was at about a 60 degree angle and I decided to sell it. Phoenix, you must be thinking of the Bronco II which is pretty narrow, because the Bronco is pretty wide.

In any case, my next off-roading truck will be a Kaiser-Jeep M715.

No, that would be part of a unique set <http://empeg.comms.net/images/icons/wink.gif>

Just to keep this Off-Topic post totally off-topic , which would be worth more? One genuine Mona Lisa, or two genuine Mona Lisas?

"Unique" cannot be connected to an adjective,
"A lot" is an item in an auction and has no other meaning.
"Hoi Polloi" you can't say "The Hoi Polloi" because "Hoi" is the Greek for " the" and you would be saying: "The the Polloi"

3 reasons that I've never spoken to my English tutor since the day I finished!

It can't be "really" one-of-a-kind, any more than it can be "nearly" one-of-a-kind.

I know that's the standard riposte, but I don't buy it. What does it mean to be unique? It means that, in some notional morphological space, it has a nonzero distance to its nearest neighbour. I think it's valid to say "really unique" if that distance is relatively large.

A point object cannot be "slightly" in France, but it can certainly be "nearly" in France, or, if a long way from the border, "really" in France.

I've got similarly little patience for people who insist that the word "literally" cannot be used metaphorically.

Peter

A point object cannot be "slightly" in France, but it can certainly be "nearly" in France, or, if a long way from the border, "really" in France.

I'd argue that something could be slightly in France, if it were just on the other side of the border from the thing that was nearly in France. Then again, maybe that would be barely in France, and something slightly in France would have to also be partially in another country as well, as a city overlapping a border (which happens occasionally -- Kansas City, Sault Ste. Marie, and Niagara come to mind -- although I don't know any in France).

However, this argument doesn't apply well to the notion of uniqueness, since there is no room for movement inside unique as there is in France. Unique means that there is one. If that is modified in any way, it is no longer unique. There is no wiggle room. Whereas there is a great (certainly non-zero) distance between, say, Nice and Calais or between Bordeaux and Paris.

I've got similarly little patience for people who insist that the word "literally" cannot be used metaphorically.

My problem with this is it's my experience that most people who use it in such a fashion are unaware that they're using it metaphorically because they don't understand what the word means (even though it's quite obvious).

However, this argument doesn't apply well to the notion of uniqueness, since there is no room for movement inside unique as there is in France.

No, that's the whole point. When someone describes the Hummer as "really unique", they mean that you could make it more humdrum and it would still end up unique, because it's so far from being the same as anything else to start with. Such an object is clearly more unique than another object which, while still unique, is morphologically quite close to its nearest neighbour. Denying the existence of degrees of uniqueness is robbing the language of clearly-defined and widely-used semantics in the name of an imaginary rule.

If there were two words in English, one meaning "unique" according to the Hummer definition, and the other meaning "unique" according to the more restrictive definition, which do you think would get more use? The first? Would the second in fact get so little use as to die out? (After all, it's now not a very unique word...) OK, now I suggest that both those words were spelt "unique" and the second has already died out.

literally

My problem with this is it's my experience that most people who use it in such a fashion are unaware that they're using it metaphorically because they don't understand what the word means (even though it's quite obvious).

The problem with that, is that almost all uses of the word "literal" are metaphorical; I don't remember ever seeing it used to mean "letter-by-letter". I don't think you have to be aware that "very" and "quite" both mean "totally" in order to employ their common metaphorical uses correctly.

Peter

Remember - you're unique, just like everyone else.

-Zeke

edit: ...and I don't want to get into the em vs en dash argument either.

Neither of these arguments sits well with me, either, although I understand your point in both cases. To me, ``unique'' is the only word that means ``one-of-a-kind'', without having to resort to such linguistic hacks as ``one-of-a-kind''. There are a multitude of words that could replace ``unique'' in this context, and offer more meaning. ``Extraordinary'', ``odd'', ``remarkable'', come to mind, but, without knowing what he meant, I cannot place any one of those adjectives in its place.

And that is the crux of my point. When words lose their meanings, or those meanings get diluted, how are we supposed to express ourselves precisely? A computer science rule states that one should be strict in output and liberal in input. To that extent, I knew what he meant. But if I wanted to express that something was one-of-a-kind, I'd much rather use a succinct term like ``unique'' (``singular'' has already gone by the wayside), but I cannot, because I'll have to qualify that, by ``unique'', I actually mean unique.

It is not a problem of the language changing, it's a problem that we're losing the ability to express ourselves in an accurate manner, and that loss of expressing, IMHO, is part of a domino effect. When we lose the ability to express our meanings, then those meanings themselves start to erode from our consciousnesses. Of course, you could dismiss that as metaphysical claptrap, and I would have no recourse, as that's a fundamental belief, with only slight evidence to back it up.

But, to speak explicitly to your points:

you could make it more humdrum and it would still end up unique

I do not believe that ``humdrum'' is on the same axis as unique. That, to me, is like saying that ``you could make it more purple and it would still end up soft'', which is obviously true, but not exactly relevant. If this, in fact, what he meant, then I would argue that he should have used a word that was the opposite of ``humdrum''.

both those words were spelt "unique" and the second has already died out

But that's obviously not the case, or this argument wouldn't have started.

almost all uses of the word "literal" are metaphorical ... I don't think you have to be aware [of denotations] in order to employ their common metaphorical uses correctly

No, you don't. However, when you're not aware of the metaphor, and assume that the metaphor is the definition, what happens when someone uses the word denotatively? And, conversely, what happens when the listener isn't sure what the speaker means because he isn't sure whether the speaker is even aware of the dichotomy at all?

My point, again, is that these sort of ignorance-based modifications make it harder for us to communicate, at least in the realm where we don't know the abilites and knowledge levels of the people with whom we are interacting. I feel confident in speaking with you, and having you understand what I mean based on the fact that you've proven yourself to be knowledgeable and outspoken, which at least implies confidence in your verbal abilities, but I have to dumb down my language so much to speak to the unknown individual that it becomes hard for me to express myself.

Regarding the 'unique' dilemma you two face (sorry I couldn't help myself), I can see both sides. The thesaurus lists these other words with 'unique' which make an interesting point about the shadings of the word.

sole
only one of its kind
single
exclusive
exceptional
inimitable
distinctive
matchless
irreplacable
rare

antonym: common

I would say that in regards to the Hummer H2 'distinctive' may be a better descriptive choice. After all, how can something that is mass produced really be unique? Perhaps the design can be, but the vehicle cannot.

-Zeke

Exactly. One of the great things, in my mind, about the English language is the number of words avaliable, each of which carries its own slightly different meaning. But if the definitions become muddied, then all of those words start to mean the exact same thing, simply because people are too lazy to try to make a distinction.

Oh, and, by the way, the last thing I wanted to do is make fun of CanuckInLA, which is why I was trying to speak in a more generalized manner before Peter stuck his big, fat nose in (j/k). I would like him, as well as everyone else, to think more about how they say things and the words they use, though.

So, Canuck, I'm sorry. I didn't really intend for this to become a big stink. In no way do I think you're an idiot, either on your own, or because of your word choice. Everyone does it, so it'd be stupid for me to single you out. But any change for the better I can make (even if it's thinking about it and totally disagreeing with me) is one step in the right direction.

Edit: Oops. It's CanuckInLA, not matthew_k. And it was pointed out to me by someone that this apology seems to come out of nowhere, and he was right. The last thing I want to do, as I said, is piss anyone off. So I might as well try my best to avoid that. And this was my attempt.

Edit edit: Well, I might intend to piss someone off (in general, but not in this case), but I definitely don't want to drive him away.

I don't think anyone will be driven away. You're our William Safire. It would be a far less interesting place if you weren't here. As he said: "...I've been Bitted". You've been verbed.

-Zeke

Well, I appreciate your appreciation of me, even if it is for my curmudgeonliness.

Oh, and, by the way, the last thing I wanted to do is make fun of CanuckInLA,

Oh, that's okay. You'd be really unique if you didn't.

So, Canuck, I'm sorry. I didn't really intend for this to become a big stink.

No apology necessary. I have a small interest in linguistics (hey, I subscribe to a word-of-the-day that goes into the etymology of the word), so the digression doesn't bother me. I have my own pet peeves that I have to rant about, too (such as top-posting, and HTML in email). Have to admit, I was a bit blind-sided by it, but what the heck.

BTW, there is a guy on the board with the nick Canuck. So far as I can tell, he's just lurking, though... I was going to use that nick, but thought I'd be really unique if I tacked in the InLA part.

Muahahaha. I know how to push Bitt's really unique buttons!

As he said: "...I've been Bitted". You've been verbed.

Don't blame the verbing on me -- I stole that from another thread. Can't remember which, though.

Oooh. Top posting. Don't get me started. At least we can agree on that one.

And I'll one-up you on HTML email. I used to regularly get email from a guy (a marketroid at an old employer) that consisted solely of Word docs. With no special markup or anything -- just text. And they'd be multiple megabyte emails. For two sentences. I still shudder thinking about it. (I got in a little bit of trouble for implementing a email size limit that tended to block his two paragraph emails.)

If that bother Bitt it's only because he's re-nouned. Ba-dumph! Thank you thank you....performing nightly!

-Zeke

Remember - you're unique, just like everyone else.

-Zeke



If you're 'one in a million', there are a thousand people just like you in China.

Oooh. Top posting. Don't get me started. At least we can agree on that one.

I think we all can...

And I'll one-up you on HTML email.

I'm currently trying to buy a house in Cambridge (long story) and was very pleased when I found a conveyancer with an email address. Unfortunately (a) he sends HTML email, and (b) he replies to incoming email by sending physical letters in the post. This is, to my mind, somehow missing the point...

Peter

When words lose their meanings, or those meanings get diluted, how are we supposed to express ourselves precisely? [...] if I wanted to express that something was one-of-a-kind, I'd much rather use a succinct term like ``unique'' (``singular'' has already gone by the wayside), but I cannot, because I'll have to qualify that, by ``unique'', I actually mean unique.

But I don't think the Hummer definition of "unique" loses you any of the original meaning. The semantics of "this thing is unique" don't change. It's just that with the Hummer definition we can also express "this thing is really unique". I wouldn't be arguing for the Hummer definition if I think it invalidated any semantics of the restrictive definition; but I think it preserves those semantics when "unique" is used unqualified. Surely changes that strictly increase the semantic range of the language are a Good Thing?

Peter

My accountant confirms his e-mails by letter, which is on the same level of silliness!

My accountant confirms his e-mails by letter, which is on the same level of silliness!

But at least that way you get the first copy at email speeds...

Peter

But at least that way you get the first copy at email
speeds...

You need to save the paper to save the planet

You need to save the paper to save the planet

Save the planet? The planet ain't going anywhere...

All I can say is that I disagree, largely because there are words out there that work just as well as unique with your definition that don't carry the possibility of causing a misunderstanding. For example, if I said ``That piece of Tiffany glass is unique,'' do I mean that it's distinctive (which it certainly would be), or do I mean that it's the only one ever made (which it could be)? (Obviously, I would mean the latter.) That could be the difference between hundreds of dollars and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So, no, changes that increase the semantic range are not always a Good Thing, as they often dilute the original meanings. If they were able to do the former without the latter, then that would definitely be a Good Thing.

Regardless, as long as you've thought about it, and determined, for logical reasons, that I'm an idiot for relying on this strict interpretation, which you obviously have, then I'm happy. Usually when I bring something like this up with the average citizen (usually because I need clarification on something they've said), I get the response ``You know what I mean'' or ``Whatever''. Which is what really bothers me. The fact that they simply don't care -- the content ignorance.

re-nouned.

Ach! That's great!

I do have one concern about Mr. Faulk's notoriety. I'm afraid that it could lead the more passive-aggressive members of the BBS to engage, perhaps unconsciously, in a certain amount of "Bitt baiting". Hopefully this BBS is above that kind of behavior.

I definitely have to agree with Bitt on this issue. I've even seen store names with terms like "very unique" inside them. When you start making grammatical errors in store names, we know that people have let the grammar slip.

Bitt, you are very justified. My mother works as an editor/researcher for National Geographic, and has done so for the last 28 years. If an author said that something was "really unique", she would call him to:
a) tell him that the phrase is incorrect
b) find out if the item is one-of-a-kind or not, then determine if unique is the word they want or not

If there was something a story described as "unique" in National Geographic that turned out to not be so, they would get countless letters. Believe me, people send in letters for the smallest details.

I agree that something like the style of the Hummer can be described as unique. There are no other cars that look anything like the Hummer except for other Hummers. Therefore the style is just plain unique, but not really unique.


And in case you're wondering, yes, as a child my school papers were always covered in red ink

I agree that something like the style of the Hummer can be described as unique. There are no other cars that look anything like the Hummer except for other Hummers. Therefore the style is just plain unique, but not really unique.


Hmm, but perhaps the use of "really" in this context is intended not to convey the level of uniqueness, but rather that in this case the "real" definition of unique should be used. It's acknowledging the dilution of the meaning of the word in general use, but saying that the speaker certainly doesn't expect any such incorrect definitions to be used when interpreting this sentence.

Maybe.

Richard.

Yeah, I think Bitt was throwing that out as a possibility earlier. We were just arguing the validity of the other intended meaning

"Hoi Polloi" you can't say "The Hoi Polloi" because "Hoi" is the Greek for " the" and you would be saying: "The the Polloi"

Something that has alternately peeved me and amused me is the frequent
duplication of the final word in a tech acronym.

These are the ones which come immediately to mind as being seen frequently.
CPU unit.
RAM memory
SIMM module
SPARC architecture
BASIC code
LAN network

And of course, at many restaurants, you can order your
french dip sandwich "with au jus."

And I'll one-up you on HTML email. I used to regularly get email from a guy (a marketroid at an old employer) that consisted solely of Word docs. With no special markup or anything -- just text. And they'd be multiple megabyte emails. For two sentences.

This is becoming common, unfortunately. I'm still fairly "old school" and don't think
email should have HTML or attachments. That's what webpages and FTP
are for after all. (But I realize that I am in a very small minority and have lost that
battle half a dozen years ago.)
But I can one up your story. A few years ago a friend sent me an email with
a 4 or 5 Meg attachment (substantial size for late 90's slow modems.)
It turned out to be a PowerPoint document. Since I received it on a Unix
workstation, I had to try to read it under our PC emulation. Of course, it
used the just-released version of PowerPoint not installed on the emulator
image yet. So I laboriously modemed it to a PC at 28.8 kbaud.
After much time and effort, it turned out to be a 1 page image which was a
party invitation. I converted it to a 50KB GIF file and sent it back to him
asking more or less "what's up with *that*, Dude?"
Turns out he had humongous bandwidth at work, assumed everyone was
running PCs with PowerPoint and had no idea that his simple image was
MS-bloated into multiple megs.

Ah, the perils of "all the world's Microsoft" thinking for those of us who aren't.

Anyway, my email filters discard anything over 100K now.
People that email me understand that.

On a related note, many email services (like American Airlines weekly specials)
don't even offer you the option of getting their email notices in non-HTML
format any more. I mean, why send 2K of destinations and fares, when
100K will do (worthless images and markup code that never change from
week to week).

Bitt,

I'm a little late to this party, but may I suggest "singular" as a close analog to "unique" ?

Calvin

Save the paper to Save the planet? The planet ain't going anywhere...

Not according to my lefty local council, who coined the slogan, they also want me to park my car at the edge of town - presumably to provide employment for car thieves in the car theft capital city of the UK - and take a sweaty, dirty, unreliable bus the rest of the way. You are as likely to see a dodo as a bicycle on the miles of cycle lanes that my taxes pay for, here.

Mind you I feel for the Empeg/Rio guys, the loony councillors of Cambridge are seriously discussing fining people for having their engines running at traffic lights.

...and it's all going to save the planet: B******s!

I have most of my mailboxes set up to drop ALL html mail, 'cos I just can't be arsed with it. Why anyone expects me to enjoy wading through the pretty pictures and formatting nonsense, I really do not know.

In email, I reckon there should be text. And punctuation. Nothing else. Then it's small, fast and easy.

Something that has alternately peeved me and amused me is the frequent
duplication of the final word in a tech acronym.

I've always cringed when people say VIN number, PIN number. etc. etc...

...or ATM machine. I can't stand that.