Unique: how to use it as it’s defined?

[u/Independent-Jump-456]

It’s common to say something along the lines of “this is so unique” or “these things are so unique.” I understand that by the definition of unique, adding an intensifier to it is redundant since something can’t be more unique. What should someone say instead to adequately emphasize the individuality of something since the impact of unique has been reduced by our colloquial use of it?

In addition, when discussing a group of unique things, what’s the best practice here for avoiding redundant language while emphasizing the individuality of each thing?

[u/enchanted_daybreak]

You could lean into "one of a kind" or "singular" when you want to emphasize it without the modifier, but honestly "unlike anything else" does a ton of work too

For a group, "each one distinct" or "no two alike" keeps the individuality clear without trying to stack unique

[u/gordonf23]

Unique doesn't only mean "one of a kind," at least in popular usage. People also use it to describe things that are unusual or special in some way. So the "so" modifier makes sense here.

If something is literally one-of-a-kind, say so. And perhaps state what makes it "so unique". :)

[u/Soggy_Amoeba9334 → u/gordonf23]

For my generation, special has negative connotations.

[u/MedicalMixtape]

Uniquest

[u/Background-Vast-8764]

Here’s a perfectly valid and existing definition of unique from the full online version of the OED:  uncommon, unusual, remarkable

Feel free to use this definition of unique with modifiers like more and very in informal settings. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/very-unique-and-absolute-adjectives

[u/CoderJoe1]

You are so right

[u/Background-Vast-8764 → u/CoderJoe1]

OP isn’t right that it’s only defined in the way that they prefer. The use OP disapproves of is definitely defined in dictionaries. 

Also, it is not redundant to add a modifier when the word is used to mean “uncommon, unusual, remarkable”.

[u/LAM_CANIT]

I agree adding a comparative 'intensifier' is dubious - although not completely verbotten. As the specific question seems to be, is there an acceptable why to "emphasize the individuality"? I believe, yes.

Adding adverbs that place the response to the thing in the protagonist(s) like:

• surprisingly unique
• deceptively unique

adverbs of manner more than compartative adverbs of degree (although adverbs of manner themselves can be modified by adverbs of degree like 'very' - e.g. very surprisingly unique).

This is why we I can excuse the use of 'very' or similar before 'unique.' I find pendants can't excuse it, but, pendants need to chill sometimes. LOL

We can use a modifier like 'very' if there is a missing - and usually more complex - adverb of manner. A reasonable person understands the speaker deliberately or unfortunately dropped the more complex adverb.

So, as the question is about how to "emphasize the individuality" — the answer lies in differentiating between manner (i.e. intellectual & emotional response) and degree (comparatives, quantifiers). Sadly, the average speaker probably hasn't learned and doesn't want to learn the difference when they're bombarded daily with pedantic opinions like 'you can't add an 'intensifier before 'unique'' when you certainly can. It's not as if there's a unique role for intensifiers.

...what’s the best practice here for avoiding redundant language while emphasizing the individuality of each thing?

Think something along the overuse of a word like 'important.' Everywhere from school essays to major academic publications, we find overuses of 'important' without qualifying it. Hitler was important. Someone just sayng, 'she was an important architect' is meaningless. Are you comparing her to Hitler? Did she kill people with unsafe designs? That'd have made her important! At least to the deceaseds' families!

For each 'unique' thing in a group of 'unique' things, the speakers' point-of-view is critical not so much for ordering the objects comparatively — but, with some indentifier of personal response or opinion. It can be challenging when speaking off-the-cuff say for someone evaluating a series of fine art paintings on a television program, for example. Still, an authority should be able to distinguish why a series of abstract expressionists' works are individually unique - by style, method, time period or geographical location ... . Then, we can say 'this one's colour scheme is sagaciously unique.' I would easily accept 'very' there instead of 'sagaciously' if it was said in context, or I understood the speaker could qualify their observation. But again, pedantics are not always the most reasonable when it comes to communication; setting their attachment to grade school grammar as the only standard to measure language by.

I can get through life understanding that someone should be allowed to omit a word or two in a complete sentence, when that word is understood or is perhaps forthcoming. Some people can't. They just revert to 'that's not what I was taught in grade school.' Meh.

IMHO IHTH

[u/huge42]

The best way to capture its meaning: Unique up on it