Cfrtjryk

Here is an excerpt from the textbook High School English Grammar & Composition, by Wren & Martin (2005 edition by S. Chand, New Delhi):

Certain adjectives do not really admit of comparison because their
meaning is already superlative; as,

Unique, Ideal, Perfect, Complete, Universal, Entire, Extreme, Chief, Square, Round

Do not therefore say:

Most Unique, quite unique, chiefest, extremest

But we still say, for instance:

This is the most perfect specimen I have seen.

My questions:

1. Isn't the last example contradicting (by using most perfect) what they described above? What are they trying to imply here? What should I take away from it?




2. I have heard the expression 'quite unique' at-least in informal English. Is it incorrect in formal English?



3. 
   

   I have seen the words 'squarer', 'squarest' and 'rounder',
   'roundest' in the dictionary. So what's wrong with using them?

   
   
   

   Suppose a child tries to draw a circle and it doesn't turn out to be
   a perfect circle, so they make another attempt and the circle they
   draw this time is better than the one they drew before; so you tell
   them that this one is rounder.

   
   

If we take square as the example, if it has four equal-length sides and 90 degree corners, it is a square. If it doesn't have those, it isn't a square, so there is nothing between the states of square/not square to be graded. Similary, something is either round or it isn't round, perfect or imperfect, unique or not unique, etc.

The confusion arises because in normal, informal usage comparatives like squarer or rounder are used in the sense of "closer to being square/round" simply because it is by far the easiest way to describe that situation.

Language theorists, long after languages are formed, attempt to invent rules for how the languages can be used.

Many millennia back, Orc, the guy who invented language in the first place, was teaching the first language class. He took a stick and drew a figure in the dust, pointed to it, and said "rog". Then he drew another figure, pointed to it and said "skar". Since geometry would not be invented for another 6 thousand years, the figures likely were not certifiably "round" and "square", even though those two words derived from his lecture.

But now certain language theorists tell us that something is not "round" unless it is "perfectly" round, and hence something cannot be "more round" than something else. Likewise, even though the US Constitution says otherwise, nothing, not even a union of states, can be "more perfect".

There is some merit to this rigidly structured view of language, in that noticing when language appears to be being used "illogically" helps one learn to write better and more clearly. Being aware of the rules is quite useful. (For this reason it especially makes sense to introduce ESL students to this view, since it serves as a "balance" to the effort to rapidly absorb idiomatic speech.) But adhering rigidly to such rules often flies in the face of common sense, and can be quite stifling of expressive speech and writing.

It suffices to say that one should use care when using a term such as "most unique", to be sure that one has not been carried overboard by the overuse of superlatives. And such terms as "chiefest" and "extremest" are ill-advised simply because those superlative forms are not idiomatic.

I have always believed that “more perfect’ means “closer to perfection” and is thus actually less than perfect.