distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing — guitarist41

I thought 'typical' just meant having the most usual qualities — guitarist41

Well the most usual/common qualities of something are its distinctive qualities, that every variation has.

Like how a distinctive feature of a bicycle is having two wheels - that's typical of a bicycle.

Thanks for replying!

But having two wheels is a definitive characteristic of a bicycle. For the word 'typical' to have a useful function, surely it must relate to non-definitive, non-essential qualities. What would be the point of 'atypical' also, then?

I do think the above definition neceessitates the "distinctive" qualities being the most usual, but I just don't think 'distinctive' is the right word. Their definition of 'distinctive' says "characteristic of one thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others". To me, that defintion means the same thing as "unique", if "serving to" means that the feature fulfills the function of distinguishing on its own, and not just "helps to".

The point of 'typical', when applied to a thing of a certain type, I thought, was a comparison to other things of the same type, rather than things of other types.

This is really bugging me.

This definition here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/typical
just says ‘usually expected’ rather than ‘distinctive’ .

I think you’re right that the word ‘typical’ does not (typically!) mean essential. Although I can see that people might use it that way. So then its meaning changes too. You know what words are like! Meaning and use can vary slightly.

The word ‘disinterested’ used to mean something different from ‘uninterested’ but in recent years (due to usage) ‘disinterested’ has come to mean ‘uninterested’ as well as what it really means.

Also: no no, you're not an idiot. (I think that's the correct response to someone who starts by saying “I am an idiot”.)

Is your Google broken?

No.

I'm just assuming that the Oxford definitions of 'typical' and 'distinctive' are both correct, and I don't understand them. This makes me feel very stupid.

Like, if somebody talks about what they do on a "typical Saturday", I think they're just saying what they usually do. I don't see what's so "distinctive" about that. Isn't the word 'typical' used to compare a thing to the other things in its class, rather than to things of other classes?

I saw one definition that said something is typical if it has the same characteristics of everything else in it's class, and I was like "how does that add any meaning?"

I can't see how I'm wrong, but because it's the Oxford dictionary, I feel I probably am and that it would be arrogant of me to declare myself as being in the right.

Wow, you seem to be getting wired about something not particularly important. How dare you! That's my prerogative!!

In your reply to me you say "I can't see how I'm wrong". But I already said you're right!!

There's just a slight ambiguity in the word "typical", that's all. Sometimes it can imply essentialness and definitiveness. For example when we say "of its type" that means something has some defining characteristic.

Also, this is the lounge. This topic is becoming too serious surely!!

I am getting too wired about it, but I can't help it. I joined this forum just because I thought it would be the place were people would take the question the most seriously.

It definitely can't be the essential qualities. But is it distinctive qualities, meaning qualities that are unique to the type (if that's the correct interpretation of 'distinctive')? Even then, if distinctive doesn't mean "unique to", but something like "almost unique to", or like "commonly found in things of this type, but not common in things of other types", I still disagree with it.

It's becoming a horrible obsession.