Individualistic would mean a political or social outlook that favors the individual over the group. Individual would mean more like unique or non-conformist. Saying ''they are individualistic'' would describe say, a right-wing political party, and saying ''they are very individual'' would describe the Breakfast Club.
As a native speaker I have to say I've never really heard that, but it could definitely be said. I think "individualistic" is probably a mistranslation unless the German word has the two above meanings.
Du hast recht. It is not an expression I have heard in the U.S. Individualistic has a wider meaning than just 'unique' or 'distinct' (distinctly + adjective). I believe it implies an attitude of wanting to be different, sometimes just for the sake of having some identifying trait that separates one from the rest. I don't suppose it could ever describe a left-wing political group.
Lots of people say that, but there's room for debate. Also, people tend to forget about the "of a kind" part. If I have a red car, and that brand of car wasn't made in red, some people might say that my car is unique. But the kind of thing it is would be a specific model of car. There might be plenty of its kind, with differences that don't change the kind of item that it is.
On the other hand, if I shift my definition of "kind" to a narrower category, such as "cars of that model in a given color" then I might be able to say that it's unique.
It makes perfect sense to think of something as more unique when less needs to be done to narrow the scope of its category. An otherwise identical car with a one inch scratch could be considered unique if we really broaden the scope that defines its kind, assuming that none other has an identical scratch. But it's arguably less unique than one that resembles no other.
If you broaden the scope enough, then everything in existence is unique. But 100,000 cars that differ only by VIN are less unique than a concept car at an auto show, where there wasn't another like it ever made.
Saying that something can't be more unique than something else means that you give equal weight to whatever establishes the "kind" of thing, and that makes no sense.
I have found a learning method (wish I could give credit the one who told me) while stuggling to get through level 9 and losing all my hearts too fast I read this: Go back to the first levels, there you can practice the basics (which I had been careless about) while still improving vocab. It works like a charm. All those: meinems and dieses I kept tripping over. Now I alternate one basic, whcih goes quickly, with one higher level and feel real improvement. So if you have learners "block" as I did give this a try. My thanks to the person who posted this. There really should be some kind of introductory manual.
Edit Can't remember when I wrote the above but I stand by it. Since then I've completed the German tree and I'm reworking it but from the bottom up. That way I get the hard stuff under my belt. Then do the light stuff. Have found the Italian and Greek much easier perhaps it's being more accustomed to the Duo methods. And continuing to have a good time.
Wrong. That's BS that some English teachers have put forth, but it goes against established usage. You are forgetting about the "OF A KIND" part. For example, a car is a kind of thing. If I have a car, and you have a different car that's unlike any other, it's not unique if the kind of things is cars. There are many other cars so it's not the only thing of that kind. It has a lot in common with other cars, or it wouldn't be considered a car. It's not one of a kind.
But there are different levels of "kind." For example, it could also be a sports car. If you decide that "sports car" is the "kind" and what makes something unique is that this particular sports car has a different license plate, then what separates it from other sports cars is minor. If you decide it's unique because it was hand built, isn't the "kind" from a given company, or a give brand within the company, or any other "kinds" that are more restrictive, it's certainly more unique. What sets it apart from others in a larger group is far more.
We can say that each license plate is unique, and none can be more unique than others, or we can say that one without any numbers is more unique than others if all others in the state have numbers. While the license plate is unique, calling a car unique because it has a given license plate is a level of uniqueness, but one that does less to make it unique as a car. It's one of a restrictive kind but one of many of a less restrictive kind.
Everything is more than one kind of thing. Kinds are subsets and supersets of other kinds of things. If the kind in question is very restrictive, but it's relatively common for there to be many instances of a broader kind, then it's less unique.
You literally can't call something unique without saying the kind. I can say that something is a unique watch. That makes the kind of thing a watch. If only one watch existed in the world, it would be more unique. If it's the only one that a given watch company made, it's less unique because it's still one of many of a broader category.
Going off on tangents about categorisation doesn't change the fact that Emil is correct. "one of a kind" is an expression, you can't pick it apart literally to glean extra meanings. Uniqueness is a true/false condition. There are no degrees or levels of uniqueness. Uniqueness is not dependent on the object's type/kind, it's absolute.
Uniqueness is absolutely subject to contextual gradation as expressed by words like "more" and "very." In a room of 10 people, the one and only German present there may be unique. In a room full of ten thousand people, if he's still the only German, he's even more unique in comparison to the first scenario.
You will discover that there is a great deal of rigidity. This is due to the fact that Duo is computer generated and a certain number of translations have been programmed. All others will be rejected. There has been, indeed, a great improvement and you can help by reporting any rejected but correct responses. See here for how, along with other ideas you may find helpful:
I definitely disagree with this.
At least in English, adding a very to any of the words you listed would be idiomatic but valid. You're pregnant at a month, but you're very pregnant at 8 months. You're individualistic if you join the Republican party, but you're very individualistic if you're a Rand follower.
Politely, I would disagree with you. Individualistic does not come in degrees. You are pregnant or you're not. At eight months some women might be heavily pregnant, which relates to the weight they are carrying. If you join the Republican party you are a Republican, if you are are a Rand follower you are Selfish [assuming you mean Ayn Rand].
It's colloquial, in English.
"Did you hear that Mary is having twins?" "Yeah, she looked REALLY pregnant!"
If you join the Republican party you're a Republican, if you're an activist for the Republican party, flyer and leaflet for them, volunteer at events, etc., you're VERY Republican. "I'm a republican, but you know, not super republican like Todd is."
I don't think this is documented anywhere, but as a native english speaker I think I can say what is or isn't colloquial english.
Absolutely. Some people who have been pregnant for a short time have fewer physiological changes and their bodies are less likely to carry a fetus to term. Other women who are near term have profound signs of pregnancy and a viable fetus. When people say "very pregnant," it's clear what's meant.
Unique is a relative term. People tend to forget the "of a kind" part. If I have the only car of a given color, then my car isn't unique if the kind of thing we are discussing is cars. It's still a car and there are others of the same kind, namely cars. It is unique if the "kind" is cars of a particular color. In common speech, we recognize that the less restrictive the category is, the more unique something is. Calling 1000 almost identical cars unique because of a single change in one character in the VIN compared to the one next to it gives very little differentiation from anything else. What makes it unique is a minor difference. Some things are unique for a minor reason and others are unique for a major reason. That's unquestionably a matter of degree. "More" and "less" are words used with respect to matters of degree.
People who argue that you are either pregnant or not, and something is either unique or not, won't argue that a person is either late or not despite its obvious truth. Yet even though you are either late or not late, we recognize that people can be very late. Arguably, it's the amount of time being late that has a matter of degree, not the act of being late itself, but almost nobody would make such an argument given that it's obvious what people mean by "very late."
The same is true for "very pregnant." Any person fluent in English and of normal intelligence would understand what's meant. Pregnancy changes a woman's body to varying degrees. The more profoundly it's changed, the more pregnant she will come across.
You are either sick or not. You are either late or not. You are either happy or not. But if my happiness affects me more than yours affects you, I'm happier. If the degree to which my sickness affects me is greater than the degree to which yours affects you, I am more sick. And if the degree to which my pregnancy affects me is greater than the degree to which yours affects you, I am more pregnant. People who argue against the way language is commonly used even when that use makes perfect sense are missing the point.
Unfortunately, the nonsense that "very unique" is wrong has been drilled into the heads of students for so many generations that it took me many decades to accept that what I was taught in school was wrong. It went against the way it's used in ordinary language, and the way it's used in ordinary language makes sense and gives meaningful information. If "very" didn't belong, it would be impossible to change the meaning of the sentence by saying "more unique" or "very unique." But it does change the meaning of the sentence in a way that's obvious to the reader or listener.
No, it's not. An oxymoron is a term that contradicts itself, or at least appears to-- something like "commonly unique." "Very unique" is more like "very dead." It has a modifying adjective which, if you insist on thinking about it a pedantic, black-and-white way, might sound unnecessary or funny: you're either dead or you're not. But I'd argue that one can see a meaningful distinction between someone who quietly passed in his sleep (dead) someone whose head was blown clean off in an orgy of violence (very dead). Or similarly, someone who died yesterday is dead, whereas Plato is very dead, by virtue of being dead for some 2500 years or so.
Uniqueness is subject to the same kinds of distinctions. The "of a kind" part is just as important as the "one." If it's a big group, your uniqueness has a lower statistical prevalence than it has in a small group. One out of a million is far more unique than one out of five.
Yes, it's a commonly used expression to indicate that what makes something unique is less common than what makes other things unique. Every dollar bill is unique in the sense that it has a different serial number. But a Picasso painting of my Aunt Martha would be more unique. The broader the kind, the greater the uniqueness. Remember, unique doesn't mean it's the only one. It means it's the only one with a specific attribute. Some things with specific attributes are rarer than others. If you have a 1949 Chrysler, it's not unique in the sense that it's a car, and there are plenty of things of that kind.
Likewise, things can be unique in multiple ways. Something unique in more ways than something else can be thought of as more unique.
Since the phrase is used commonly, people know what it means, and it's not redundant if it gives more information, then the argument that things can't be "very unique" falls apart.
DL seems to have it wrong here. Individuell from what I understand means unique.