Talk:Sui generis

I don't think databases qualify as "a small class of works".

pronunciation

some guidance on this page for pronunciation would be great :) I would do it, but I don't know how to pronounce it. On the other hand, perhaps it is subject to regional variation which is usually simply split between the US and other English speaking nations, so it would be good to have both. On the other hand, it isn't even English, so <shrug>

i added the 'official' British English pronounciation

As it's latin, I do think the correct pronunciation is "sew-i generis" as opposed to "swee". The "sew" is pronounced the same as the name Sue. The generis part is easy - just pronounce each letter, as in "jeneris".

Many of us have not been so fortunate as to have obtained higher education and so must take our education where we can find it. Wikipedia is one of those places. The "pronunciation guide" left me more confused then when I started reading. I'm guessing something along the lines of "swee john-a-ree" but I could be off by miles.

Indeed there seems to be some confusion on Latin pronounciation. Latin is a language that didn't change in the last 1600 years, so there cannot be any American or British pronounciation.

The Latin pronounciation of "g" is always like in "good" and not like in "general". However, the expression was popularised in the English language, and therefore commonly used with English pronounciation. I suggest this be clarified on the page. Tang Wenlong (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Meaning

It's correct definition is "of it's own kind; unlike anything else".

Sui generis and SCN?

Hi!

At present, the European Union is quite unique as an organisation, as currently no other inter-state body matches its level of integration, yet shares its diffusion of sovereignty.

However, if the proposed South American Community of Nations develops as proposed (which is not exactly a sure thing, it must be said) would the Sui generis term be less valid when referrign to the EU, or would any deviance between a developed SCN and EU still allow for the term to be valid?

--Nerroth 10:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I do not understand the question. Can you ask it another way please. David91 12:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think one should apply the term to the EU. The idea that you can describe it as being "somewhere between" two other things contradicts that it is unique in its characteristics. The EU is a blend of other things. Just being different is not sui generis.

I think the EU is at the moment a historically unique body; but time will tell whether it remains the sole example of its kind, or if it is the harbinger of a new type of entity. SACN, AU (African Union), etc., cannot be remotely compared to the EU in its current state, but may well develop to a similar level of integration in due course. Now, if that happens, it would then be reasonable to ask how similar or different they are in their structure to the EU -- certainly, their current plans are heavily EU-influenced, but we will have to see what happens in practice -- and, if they turn out to have sufficiently similar institutional structures to the EU, we might be justified in saying that the EU is no longer sui generis at all, but just the first member of a class of EU-like entities ("continental unions", maybe?) But the answer to that question is probably several decades hence -- until then, its just navel gazing. --SJK (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

usage

This phrase seems to be getting more use lately. I think I first noticed someone use it about 2 years ago and now I hear it quite often. Does anyone know how or why it has been re-injected into the vernacular?

The reason I think is that the Sui Generis organization is being a little more vocal of late. I did actually add an addition to the page, but it was deleted, probably because mine was the only source of it. I'm trying to get more sources to validate it. I know it to be true because I'm a member of it. It's been around for a while, and is a very good thing. I would add that anything to be purporting to be Sui Generis in this manner on the web isn't anything to do with it. Nor are any companies with the name related.

taxonomy example

Homo sapiens are sui generis in the animal kingdom.

Usage/Context

The expression was used by Duke University for the 2000-01 academic year in its Student Brochure. It was like, "Duke University.......Sui Generis (Altogether Unique)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.20.228 (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

In the interest of plain speaking

Is there some reason why the lead avoids using the common phrase, "in a class of its own?" Baon 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it is more vague or less clear. I mean, if someone says something is "in a class of its own", do they mean to say it is so unique that it cannot be classified into other classes (i.e. sui generis)? Or is this some kind of vague advertising claim, like how a prestige car manufacturer might claim that their new car is "in a class of its own"? That new car model may well be in a "class of its own", but you probably wouldn't call it sui generis. The problem with native English phrases is they are more prone to abuse by advertisers and the uninformed, and hence their clarity of meaning suffers -- whereas Latin borrowings (especially the less common ones) are far less likely to be used improperly or by those who don't really understand them, and thus the clarity of their meaning is preserved. --SJK (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Biblical Use

I know it's used to describe the genre of the gospels in the New Testament (as in, "The Gospels are sui generis as a genre."), as they are unlike other biographies in their basic nature and purpose, and unlike any other genre within Christian scripture. I'll let anyone inclined to include this in the article arue it out with the anti-religious or anti-(for whatever reason) people whether this should be included or not. Will look for references in the meantime. 61.77.135.17 (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut the trivia section.

You can call it "examples in media" or whatnot in you want, but it's still a trivia section. The article is more than adequate without referencing Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.135.114 (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)