The other day, Monday I believe, I was driving down the road wondering what, exactly, was the functional difference between “ubiquitous” and “pervasive.”
Does anything like this ever happen to you?
I believe the difference is in what the words convey, not so much their direct meaning. Their different aspects, if you will.
Ubiquitous hints at commonness. At something being extremely non-unique.
Pervasiveness hints at something that spreads. It has a tinge of malevolence. Also, when something is pervasive, it hasn’t necessarily *already* spread to all parts; it has the capability and tendency to do so.
Yeah, that’s pretty much what the dictionary said. You’re right, too, in that I, at least, think of ubiquity as being relatively innocuous. I hadn’t thought of pervasiveness as being malevolent, but the dictionary agreed with you there, too.
I really really like Tacos!
Is there really a person in the world who doesn’t like tacos?
*Dan is rooting for that person being a Mexican*
A Mexican who doesn’t like tacos is like a Canadian who doesn’t like hockey.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *