Skip to main content

Perfect vs Whole vs Entire vs Intact

Perfectwholeentireintact are comparable when they mean not deficient, defective, or faulty in any particular.

Perfect is the usual term to describe such a condition, for it may imply not only the presence of every part, every element, and every quality necessary to a thing in its finished or fully developed state, but the soundness, the proportionateness, and the excellence of each part, element, or quality.

The term is also applicable where there is no more definite measure or test than correspondence to a very high standard of excellence or to an archetype, definition, or pattern or to a conception that represents an ideal or personal vision of the highest possible of its kind.

The term is also used in the sense of utter or complete. Whole and entire (see also WHOLE 2 ) are somewhat elevated and often reminiscent of scriptural use.

Whole usually implies a perfection, typically a moral or physical perfection, that can be sought and attained or that can be lost and regained; it usually suggests the attainment of or restoration to health, soundness, completeness.

Entire usually implies a physical, intellectual, moral, or spiritual perfection that derives from the completeness, integrity, soundness, and often the freedom from admixture of the thing so described; more than whole, it suggests a perfection that is unimpaired or without sign of previous imperfection; thus, a collection is entire when no constituent item is missing; an entire horse is an adult uncastrated male.

Intact usually implies the retention of the perfection of a thing in its finished or its natural or its original state; often it suggests its passage through some experience that might have destroyed its soundness, integrity, or wholeness.