"Canada is one of the only countries..."
John Hall
After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
--
John W Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net>
Cochrane, Alberta, Canada.
"Helping People Prosper in the Information Age"
MC
John Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net> wrote:
> Our CBC has let me down again.
> After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
> twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
> didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
I'm not sure what the objection is.
If I say "Canada, France and Upper Volta are the only countries I've
never visited," is that OK?
And if it is, why can't I say "Canada is one of the only countries I've
never visited"?
Quentin Burward
John Hall at <wweexxss...@telus.net> says in
<hdo2qvc9fl23lts41...@4ax.com>:
> Our CBC has let me down again.
>
> After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the twelve
> o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I didn't hear what it
> is we're doing or not doing.
The Australian Broadcasting (amateurish to the Core)poration is another
broadcasting outfit that keeps the venerable "one of the only" style in its
armory of ways to repel a prospective audience.
But I have it on good authority that if a habit of speech or writing
_exists_, no matter how illogical or distracting it is, then it should be
regarded as being no less valid than any other habit of speech or writing.
--
Quentin Burward.
John Hall
wrote:
>In article <hdo2qvc9fl23lts41...@4ax.com>,
> John Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Our CBC has let me down again.
>> After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
>> twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
>> didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
>
>I'm not sure what the objection is.
>
>If I say "Canada, France and Upper Volta are the only countries I've
>never visited," is that OK?
That has my Seal of Approval.
>And if it is, why can't I say "Canada is one of the only countries I've
>never visited"?
What is the meaning of 'only' in this case?
Why not 'One of the few' or 'one of the three'?
I can't pin down exactly which language rule is being broken, but I
know when I smell a break.
Joe Fineman
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:37:14 -0500, MC <cop...@AMZAPca.inter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <hdo2qvc9fl23lts41...@4ax.com>,
> > John Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Our CBC has let me down again.
> >> After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
> >> twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
> >> didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
> >
> >I'm not sure what the objection is.
> >
> >If I say "Canada, France and Upper Volta are the only countries I've
> >never visited," is that OK?
>
> That has my Seal of Approval.
>
> >And if it is, why can't I say "Canada is one of the only countries
> >I've never visited"?
>
> What is the meaning of 'only' in this case?
> Why not 'One of the few' or 'one of the three'?
>
> I can't pin down exactly which language rule is being broken, but I
> know when I smell a break.
"One of the only..." doesn't break any language rules; it just
contains a superfluous word, viz. "only". You are one of the only
countries to do thus & so if & only if you are one of the countries to
do thus & so. There is nothing in the sentence for "only" to limit or
emphasize.
I suspect that this solecism is a blend of "The only country" & "One
of the few countries".
In "Canada is the only country that..." and "Canada & the U.S. are the
only countries that...", "only" is semantically superfluous in that
the "the" suffices to exclude other countries; but "only" adds some
(usually welcome) emphasis. But with "one of the" there is no
uniqueness to emphasize.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: Men are luckier than women: they marry later & die sooner. :||
Jerry Friedman
Valid in what sense? I'll bet no one has told you that if a habit of
speech or writing exists, you should regard it as good style or clear
exposition.
I'm not a good authority. Nonetheless, I'm going to share my opinion
with you (or inflict it on you). "One of the only" (countries, etc.)
is an established idiom for "one of the few". As far as I remember,
I've heard and read it mostly from journalists. I think it sucks ugly
and I intend never to use it.
--
Jerry Friedman
David McMurray
> Our CBC has let me down again.
> After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
> twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
> didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
"...ban the sterilization of people who say things such as 'my peeve
detector/processor kicked in."
Ben Zimmer
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:37:14 -0500, MC <cop...@AMZAPca.inter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <hdo2qvc9fl23lts41...@4ax.com>,
> > John Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Our CBC has let me down again.
> >> After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
> >> twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
> >> didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
> >
> >I'm not sure what the objection is.
> >
> >If I say "Canada, France and Upper Volta are the only countries I've
> >never visited," is that OK?
>
> That has my Seal of Approval.
>
> >And if it is, why can't I say "Canada is one of the only countries I've
> >never visited"?
>
> What is the meaning of 'only' in this case?
Precisely what it means in MC's first sentence, i.e.:
OED2:
"One (or, by extension, two or more), of which there
exist no more, or no others, of the kind."
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=55490&dict=CALD&desc=only
"used to show that there is a single one or very few
of something, or that there are no others"
Infoplease Dictionary:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0567027.html
"being the single one or the relatively few of the kind"
Literary usages:
"From one of the only two windows on the ground floor
which were not boarded up came rays of light..."
--Thomas Hardy, "A Pair of Blue Eyes"
"Your cruelty has destroyed one of the only creatures
in existence that would look on me with kindness!"
--Walter Scott, "The Black Dwarf"
"I slept in one of the only two berths in the vessel..."
--Edgar Allen Poe, "The Premature Burial"
"Mrs. Rick was the only white woman on the island, and
one of the only two in the archipelago."
--Robert Louis Stevenson, "In the South Seas"
"Well, then, there's been a big fight, and I'm one of
the only chaps who know about it so far."
--PG Wodehouse, "The Gold Bat"
CyberCypher
news:hdo2qvc9fl23lts41...@4ax.com on 31 Oct 2003:
> Our CBC has let me down again.
> After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
> twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
> didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
We recently had a long discussion about this very topic in AUE, so I
doubt that many of the regular posters here are willing to go through
it all again. If I remember correctly, we are hopelessly split on this
issue, as we are on so many others of equal import. There are those who
agree with you and insist that it is a solecism and those who insist
that regardless of that meaningless "only" verbosity couch-potatoing
away to the right of center, "it is the way the language is used and
must be accepted as an idiom".
'Nuff said.
Quentin Burward
Jerry Friedman at <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> says in
<96efe132.03103...@posting.google.com>:
Peace, dear Jerry. I couldn't disagree with you less. I've been an agent
provocateur, and you've been duly provoked.
I invite you to revisit the threads headed <Intro A: Welcome to AUE and
Guidelines for Posting> and <Re: re-opening, reopening>, especially these
four messages on or around Wednesday 29 October:
* <BBC527AA.18D00%que...@burward.com>,
* <1g3k90x.1tmfi8m14u4xkoN%tr...@euronet.nl>,
* <BBC542E5.18D21%que...@burward.com> and
* <1g3l5my.ri0ndu1gkw7swN%tr...@euronet.nl>.
--
Quentin Burward.
John Hall
McMurray) wrote:
>"...ban the sterilization of people who say things such as 'my peeve
>detector/processor kicked in."
I have been sterilised, but too late, my progeny are in circulation.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> the inimitable John Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:hdo2qvc9fl23lts41...@4ax.com on 31 Oct 2003:
>
>> Our CBC has let me down again.
>> After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
>> twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
>> didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
>
> There are those who agree with you and insist that it is a solecism and
> those who insist that regardless of that meaningless "only" verbosity
> couch-potatoing away to the right of center, "it is the way the
> language is used and must be accepted as an idiom".
What about those who regard it as not only perfectly standard but also
not "an idiom", since calling something an idiom suggests that its
acceptability is unexplainable, that either it doesn't conform to
expected grammar or that it's meaning is not what would be expected from
the meanings of its components. Neither of these is true of "one of the
only countries". It's like "more complete" - something that a few people
have convinced themselves shouldn't make sense and therefore must be a
solecism, when actually it does make sense and is unexceptional standard
usage.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
John Varela
<din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote:
> What about those who regard it as not only perfectly standard but also
> not "an idiom", since calling something an idiom suggests that its
> acceptability is unexplainable, that either it doesn't conform to
> expected grammar or that it's meaning is not what would be expected from
> the meanings of its components. Neither of these is true of "one of the
> only countries". It's like "more complete" - something that a few people
> have convinced themselves shouldn't make sense and therefore must be a
> solecism, when actually it does make sense and is unexceptional standard
> usage.
Well, that's one of the most unique arguments I've heard.
--
John Varela
(Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.)
I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much.
CyberCypher
in news:bnsd3a$ea0p$1...@netnews.upenn.edu on 31 Oct 2003:
> On 31 Oct 2003 00:21:54 GMT, CyberCypher
> <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> the inimitable John Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net> wrote in
>> news:hdo2qvc9fl23lts41...@4ax.com on 31 Oct 2003:
>>
>>> Our CBC has let me down again.
>>> After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
>>> twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and
>>> I didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
>>
>> There are those who agree with you and insist that it is a
>> solecism and those who insist that regardless of that meaningless
>> "only" verbosity couch-potatoing away to the right of center, "it
>> is the way the language is used and must be accepted as an
>> idiom".
>
> What about those who regard it as not only perfectly standard but
> also not "an idiom", since calling something an idiom suggests
> that its acceptability is unexplainable, that either it doesn't
> conform to expected grammar or that it's meaning is not what would
> be expected from the meanings of its components.
Not necessarily, but usually, it's true.
> Neither of these
> is true of "one of the only countries". It's like "more complete"
> - something that a few people have convinced themselves shouldn't
> make sense and therefore must be a solecism, when actually it does
> make sense and is unexceptional standard usage.
Yes, and like "more unique" as well. If something is "complete", then
logically there cannot be a similar something that is "more
complete". If I have a complete set of of _Mad Magazine_, that means
that have every issue from #1 until the latest issue published. How
can another set from #1-the latest issued be "more complete"? Only if
one or more of the issues that I own is missing an article or a page.
But if my set is in "pristine condition", it is not possible for any
other set to be "more complete".
I have to agree with John Varela here. This is a unique argument. I
will grant you that it does make sense if you look at it in a certain
way. Let's look at when, where, and how it makes sense.
Say the witness Ms X has given what she declares to be "a complete
description of what happened on the night of June 25, 1996". After
she leaves the stand, Mr Y gives exactly the same description and
adds a detail or three that Ms X has left out. One of the lawyers is
compelled to call Mr Y's description "more complete" that Ms X's. If
Mr Y's is actually "complete", then Ms X's was "incomplete" , but if
a third witness takes the stand and gives exactly the same
description of events as Mr Y but adds a detail or three omitted by
Mr Y, then this third description has to be called "the most
complete". Whether any of the three is actually "complete" is moot,
but given the shagginess of these explanations, it is perfectly
normal to call the second and third "more complete" than the previous
ones. If the details added by Mr Y or the third witness are
irrelevant to the case, however, while "more complete" in one sense,
they are merely "verbose" in another.
AND:
A: There are a number of anglophone countries in what geographers
call "North America"
B: Yes, but when Asian schools ask for native speakers of "North
American English", they don't want people who are natives of Jamaica,
as lovely as the English there sounds. I'm certain that ***the only
two countries*** they are referring to are Canada and the USA.
A: But the USA is not one of ***the only two countries*** in North
America that exports English teachers in order to rid itself of
surplus but otherwise unemployable workers.
B: Are you implying that expat Canadian English teachers are "surplus
but otherwise unemployable workers"?
A: I didn't say that. You did. I might have been referring to Belize
--- formerly British Honduras --- for all you know.
Here it seems clear that the entire phrase was taken without
alteration from a context it which it is perfectly normal and placed
into a context in which it is not perfectly normal. It's very like
what almost all native speakers of Japanese and Chinese do when they
use the word "ever" in declarative English sentences, eg,
A: Have you ***ever eaten*** fugu (blowfish)?
B: Yes, I have ***ever eaten*** fugu. I had some the last time I was
in Japan.
There is nothing unclear about either solecism, but while the first
is considered idiomatic English, the second is not.
Matti Lamprhey
> John Hall wrote:
I'd say that these mix "correct" and "incorrect" usages.
Correct - Hardy, Poe, Stevenson
Incorrect - Scott, Wodehouse (both in dialogue, possibly significant)
Matti
John Dean
And your 'correct' quotes would remain correct if the 'the' preceding 'only'
were removed. Coincidence?
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman at <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> says in
> <96efe132.03103...@posting.google.com>:
>
> > Quentin Burward <que...@burward.com> wrote in message
> > news:<BBC7B3B0.194FE%que...@burward.com>...
> >> The Australian Broadcasting (amateurish to the Core)poration is another
> >> broadcasting outfit that keeps the venerable "one of the only" style in its
> >> armory of ways to repel a prospective audience.
> >>
> >> But I have it on good authority that if a habit of speech or writing
> >> _exists_, no matter how illogical or distracting it is, then it should be
> >> regarded as being no less valid than any other habit of speech or writing.
> >
> > Valid in what sense? I'll bet no one has told you that if a habit of speech
> > or writing exists, you should regard it as good style or clear exposition.
> >
> > I'm not a good authority. Nonetheless, I'm going to share my opinion with you
> > (or inflict it on you). "One of the only" (countries, etc.) is an established
> > idiom for "one of the few". As far as I remember, I've heard and read it
> > mostly from journalists. I think it sucks ugly and I intend never to use it.
>
> Peace, dear Jerry. I couldn't disagree with you less.
On which, that "one of the only" is illogical and distracting (where I
thought we agreed), or what conclusions you can draw from the
existence of a locution (where I thought we might have disagreed), or
both?
> I've been an agent provocateur, and you've been duly provoked.
...
I hope it was good for you.
Since you said "peace" above, I infer that you felt my previous post
was hostile. It wasn't supposed to be, except to the use of "one of
the only [plural noun]". Sorry if I didn't manage my tone right. I
am a little annoyed at your provoking me and my letting myself be
provoked, but I'm about to get over it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum
> But I have it on good authority that if a habit of speech or writing
> _exists_, no matter how illogical or distracting it is, then it
> should be regarded as being no less valid than any other habit of
> speech or writing.
I don't understand what you could possibly mean by "no less valid".
Clearly something is either "valid" or not. "Less valid" would make
no more sense than "more unique" or "more complete".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Now every hacker knows
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | That the secret to survivin'
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is knowin' when the time is free
| And what's the load and queue
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |'Cause everyone's a cruncher
(650)857-7572 | And everyone's a user
|And the best that you can hope for
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Is a crash when you're through
Jerry Friedman
> On 31 Oct 2003 00:21:54 GMT, CyberCypher <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> > the inimitable John Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net> wrote in
> > news:hdo2qvc9fl23lts41...@4ax.com on 31 Oct 2003:
> >
> >> Our CBC has let me down again.
> >> After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
> >> twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
> >> didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
> >
> > There are those who agree with you and insist that it is a solecism and
> > those who insist that regardless of that meaningless "only" verbosity
> > couch-potatoing away to the right of center, "it is the way the
> > language is used and must be accepted as an idiom".
>
> What about those who regard it as not only perfectly standard but also
> not "an idiom", since calling something an idiom suggests that its
> acceptability is unexplainable, that either it doesn't conform to
> expected grammar or that it's meaning is not what would be expected from
> the meanings of its components. Neither of these is true of "one of the
> only countries".
No, the second one is true. The way I understand "one of the only
countries", through my native-speaker intuition, is that it's
identical to "one of the few countries" (except that "one of the only"
leaves open the possibility that the speaker realized that "few" might
be wrong and didn't want to either do the research or be corrected, in
which case the meaning is identical to "one of the countries"). But
"only" doesn't mean "few" in any construction but "one of the only
[plural noun], "three of the only [plural noun], etc.
The closest I can get to a different sentence where "only" and "few"
are grammatically interchangeable is "Canada, Burkina Faso, and three
other countries are the only countries that do X." But "Canada,
Burkina Faso, and three other countries are the few countries that do
X" means something a bit different to me--the "few" is a
non-restrictive adjective, adding the information that the speaker
considers the number five to be small in this case. J. W. Love would
say that "few" is misplaced here, if I understand him right. "Only",
on the other hand, merely emphasizes that there are no others, as Joe
Fineman said.
So in my English language (as Prof. Lawler might say), "one of the
only" is an idiom according to your definition, which I agree with.
And an idiom I dislike. Is my argument valid? And if so, but if "one
of the only [plural noun]" is a non-idiomatic phrase in your English
language, I'm curious about how you account for it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Quentin Burward
--
Quentin Burward.
John Hall
<que...@burward.com> wrote:
>This is one of the only threads in <alt.usage.english>.
I can now understand why I was unable to pin down my unease about 'one
of the only' (I'm the OP) - 24 hours later the controversy continues
to rage. Very interesting.
Q for Quentin Burward: is that your real name? Nothing wrong with it,
but to my ears (and associated perception apparatus) it sounds as
though it's a character from a 1930's novel, or perhaps Wodehouse.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> The way I understand "one of the only countries", through my
> native-speaker intuition, is that it's identical to "one of the few
> countries" (except that "one of the only" leaves open the possibility
> that the speaker realized that "few" might be wrong and didn't want to
> either do the research or be corrected, in which case the meaning is
> identical to "one of the countries"). But "only" doesn't mean "few" in
> any construction but "one of the only [plural noun], "three of the only
> [plural noun], etc.
>
> The closest I can get to a different sentence where "only" and "few"
> are grammatically interchangeable is "Canada, Burkina Faso, and three
> other countries are the only countries that do X." But "Canada,
> Burkina Faso, and three other countries are the few countries that do
> X" means something a bit different to me--the "few" is a
> non-restrictive adjective, adding the information that the speaker
> considers the number five to be small in this case.
I don't believe that "few" adds that information; I think it's also
present in "only". Other than the difference in register between "the few"
and "the only", the only difference between your two sentences seems to me
to be one of emphasis. The version of the sentence with "only" emphasizes
that there are no others; the version with "few" emphasizes that the
number is small; but both sentences carry that information.
> So in my English language (as Prof. Lawler might say), "one of the
> only" is an idiom according to your definition, which I agree with.
> And an idiom I dislike. Is my argument valid?
I don't know - can you use "only" in situations where the number is not
presupposed to be few? An example I brought up elsewhere in this thread,
or perhaps in the other thread that's discussing the same topic, was "The
only countries I haven't been to are those in South America, Central
America, Asia, Africa, and eastern Europe." Is that sentence reasonable
to you? To me, it's ludicrous.
> And if so, but if "one of the only [plural noun]" is a non-idiomatic
> phrase in your English language, I'm curious about how you account for it.
I assume you intend "non-idiomatic" to mean 'not constituting an idiom',
not 'unidiomatic'. And the answer is that "only" entails 'few', so "one
of the only" entails 'one of the few' (and in "one of the only", I think,
the other entailments of "only" are rendered negligible or moot, so "one
of the only means 'one of the few'. I'm not sure if I'm using the word
"entail" properly here).
Donna Richoux
>
> Q for Quentin Burward: is that your real name? Nothing wrong with it,
> but to my ears (and associated perception apparatus) it sounds as
> though it's a character from a 1930's novel, or perhaps Wodehouse.
Sir Walter Scott novel. "Quentin Durward." 1955 movie with Robert
Taylor. That may be the only movie I've ever seen with Taylor in it; I
mostly know his name because he went to the same college as my parents
(some years before).
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Quentin Burward
I apologise for my woolliness. I meant that I agreed with the statement of
yours that appeared immediately before my "Peace, dear Jerry": "I think it
sucks ugly and I intend never to use it."
>> I've been an agent provocateur, and you've been duly provoked.
> ...
>
> I hope it was good for you.
The earth moved.
> Since you said "peace" above, I infer that you felt my previous post was
> hostile. It wasn't supposed to be, except to the use of "one of the only
> [plural noun]". Sorry if I didn't manage my tone right. I am a little
> annoyed at your provoking me and my letting myself be provoked, but I'm about
> to get over it.
Good. I'd been hoping my statement "I have it on good authority" would have
shown my tongue making a bulge in my infernal cheek. I must learn to be more
careful in my writing.
--
Quentin Burward.
Quentin Burward
Evan Kirshenbaum at <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> says in
<y8v11f...@hpl.hp.com>:
> Quentin Burward <que...@burward.com> writes:
>
>> But I have it on good authority that if a habit of speech or writing
>> _exists_, no matter how illogical or distracting it is, then it should be
>> regarded as being no less valid than any other habit of speech or writing.
>
> I don't understand what you could possibly mean by "no less valid". Clearly
> something is either "valid" or not. "Less valid" would make no more sense
> than "more unique" or "more complete".
Oops. I accept your point, and I thank you for highlighting my error. You've
corroborated the generally accepted belief that in our use of words there
are some universal standards that we should strive to meet.
--
Quentin Burward.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> This is one of the only threads in <alt.usage.english>.
That is a valuable contribution.
And the value is easily seen to be exceedingly small.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the
|channel on our televisions......
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus"
(650)857-7572
Quentin Burward
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 06:00:42 +1100, Quentin Burward
> <que...@burward.com> wrote:
>
>> This is one of the only threads in <alt.usage.english>.
>
> I can now understand why I was unable to pin down my unease about 'one
> of the only' (I'm the OP) - 24 hours later the controversy continues
> to rage. Very interesting.
>
> Q for Quentin Burward: is that your real name? Nothing wrong with it,
> but to my ears (and associated perception apparatus) it sounds as
> though it's a character from a 1930's novel, or perhaps Wodehouse.
Great Scott! I thought you'd have worked it out by yourself. I simply
changed one letter of the alphabet to bring the name closer to home.
--
Quentin Burward.
Evan Kirshenbaum
You don't even have to duck, do you?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"The Dynamics of Interbeing and
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Monological Imperatives in 'Dick
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and Jane' : A Study in Psychic
|Transrelational Modes."
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Quentin Burward
That's a brilliant reposte, Evan. I'd love to be allowed to work with you in
Hewlett-Packard's public-relations department.
--
Quentin Burward.
Richard Maurer
Our CBC has let me down again.
After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
<< [Joe Fineman]
"One of the only..." doesn't break any language rules; it just
contains a superfluous word, viz. "only". You are one of the only
countries to do thus & so if & only if you are one of the countries to
do thus & so. There is nothing in the sentence for "only" to limit or
emphasize.
I suspect that this solecism is a blend of "The only country" & "One
of the few countries".
[end quote] >>
We would all find this acceptable
"Canada is one of only three countries to ..."
We certainly have accepted constructions similar to "the only" --
the problem is probably just that this one is new.
It allows vagueness in a way consistent with other constructions.
Here are some others
"Thomas is one of the three best forwards in college today."
"Thomas is one of the best forwards in college today."
"Hubert is one of the three worst professors at our college."
"Hubert is one of the worst professors at our college."
"Phyllis is one of the top three guards in college today."
"Phyllis is one of the three top guards in college today."
"Phyllis is one of the top guards in college today."
"A 'Slither the Snake' is one the twelve rarest Beanie Babies."
"A 'Slither the Snake' is one the rarest twelve Beanie Babies."
"A 'Slither the Snake' is one the rarest Beanie Babies."
"A 'Slither the Snake' is one the rare Beanie Babies."
"Mary is one of only three blue haired professors at our college."
"Mary is one of the only blue haired professors at our college."
They seem pretty similar, though not exactly the same --
usually it is "one of only three", not "one of the only three".
Although if they are doing something, we may add the 'the'.
"Mary is one of the only three blue haired professors at our college
who rode a unicycle while lecturing."
(Not sure about this last 'the', the sentence is melting due to overuse.)
"The only" looked strange when I saw it mentioned here recently,
but it does not look nearly so strange today.
I predict that it will be accepted within twenty years.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MC
"Richard Maurer" <Richar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Or in my case, 20+ years ago...
Maria Conlon
>
> I assume you intend "non-idiomatic" to mean 'not constituting an
> idiom',
> not 'unidiomatic'. And the answer is that "only" entails 'few', so
> "one
> of the only" entails 'one of the few' (and in "one of the only", I
> think,
> the other entailments of "only" are rendered negligible or moot, so
> "one
> of the only means 'one of the few'. I'm not sure if I'm using the word
> "entail" properly here).
"One of the few" implies a small number; "few" is fairly definable.
"One of the only" implies to me that the speaker/writer is not thinking
about what is being said/written. (How many is "the only"? Without
further context, it's *the one*. "One of the one" just doesn't work.)
I cannot think of a circumstance where I would say "one of the only." It
may be that it's idiomatic in some regions and not in others.
========
Entail (transitive verb; m-w online):
1 : to restrict (property) by limiting the inheritance to the owner's
lineal descendants or to a particular class thereof
2 a : to confer, assign, or transmit as if by entail : FASTEN <entailed
on them indelible disgrace -- Robert Browning> b : to fix (a person)
permanently in some condition or status <entail him and his heirs unto
the crown -- Shakespeare>
3 : to impose, involve, or imply as a necessary accompaniment or result
<the project will entail considerable expense>
Meaning 3 may fit, but I don't know, Aaron. I think I might have gone
with "suggests" rather than "entails." For "entailments," I would
substitute "meanings."
That doesn't mean that I think you were using "entail" incorrectly. It
just means that it wouldn't occur to me to use it that way.
Maria Conlon
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
>
>> I assume you intend "non-idiomatic" to mean 'not constituting an
>> idiom', not 'unidiomatic'. And the answer is that "only" entails 'few', so
>> "one of the only" entails 'one of the few' (and in "one of the only", I
>> think, the other entailments of "only" are rendered negligible or moot, so
>> "one of the only means 'one of the few'. I'm not sure if I'm using the
>> word "entail" properly here).
>
> "One of the few" implies a small number; "few" is fairly definable.
>
> "One of the only" implies to me that the speaker/writer is not thinking
> about what is being said/written. (How many is "the only"? Without
> further context, it's *the one*. "One of the one" just doesn't work.)
Does "The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada"
sound odd to you? In this sentence, and in others with "only" as an
adjective with a plural noun, "only" means 'few (and there are no
others)'.
If it does not sound odd to you, then why should "Canada is one of the
only countries I've been to" imply that the speaker is not thinking if
"The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada" does not?
> I cannot think of a circumstance where I would say "one of the only." It
> may be that it's idiomatic in some regions and not in others.
It could be. Perhaps it's new. But I want to stress that there's nothing
about it to suggest that the person who uses it isn't thinking about what
it means. I don't think you're seeing what the meaning of "only" is.
rzed
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:24:40 -0500, Maria Conlon <mcon...@sprynet.com>
wrote:
>
> > Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
> >
> >> I assume you intend "non-idiomatic" to mean 'not constituting an
> >> idiom', not 'unidiomatic'. And the answer is that "only" entails 'few',
so
> >> "one of the only" entails 'one of the few' (and in "one of the only", I
> >> think, the other entailments of "only" are rendered negligible or moot,
so
> >> "one of the only means 'one of the few'. I'm not sure if I'm using the
> >> word "entail" properly here).
> >
> > "One of the few" implies a small number; "few" is fairly definable.
> >
> > "One of the only" implies to me that the speaker/writer is not thinking
> > about what is being said/written. (How many is "the only"? Without
> > further context, it's *the one*. "One of the one" just doesn't work.)
>
> Does "The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada"
> sound odd to you? In this sentence, and in others with "only" as an
> adjective with a plural noun, "only" means 'few (and there are no
> others)'.
>
> If it does not sound odd to you, then why should "Canada is one of the
> only countries I've been to" imply that the speaker is not thinking if
> "The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada" does
not?
>
only countries I've been to that requires French-language road signs." Once
I add France to my small collection of countries, then I imagine I will have
visited the only one of the only countries I've been to that requires only
French-language road signs. It's a fun game. Try it! But people who use "one
of the only" do not generally use it in a construction like the one you
mention. They use it in exactly the context where they would otherwise use
"one of the few."
--
rzed
Aaron J. Dinkin
> "Aaron J. Dinkin" <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:bo15hq$uhr$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>
>> Does "The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada"
>> sound odd to you? In this sentence, and in others with "only" as an
>> adjective with a plural noun, "only" means 'few (and there are no
>> others)'.
>>
>> If it does not sound odd to you, then why should "Canada is one of the
>> only countries I've been to" imply that the speaker is not thinking if
>> "The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada" does
>> not?
>
> Well, we can carry this on a little further. "Canada is the only one of the
> only countries I've been to that requires French-language road signs."
Awkward, but grammatical. I think the second "only" would be more likely
to be replaced by "few" (to avoid confusion with two "only"s bumping up
against each other) than "few" is to be used on its own.
> Once I add France to my small collection of countries, then I imagine I
> will have visited the only one of the only countries I've been to that
> requires only French-language road signs.
This one is practically unparseable. It gets better if you replace "I've
been to" with "I will have been to". But it's pragmatically very odd
anyway, even without the "only"s - its basic thrust is a tautology, 'I'll
have been to one of the countries I'll have visited.'
> It's a fun game. Try it! But people who use "one of the only" do not
> generally use it in a construction like the one you mention. They use
> it in exactly the context where they would otherwise use "one of the few."
That _is_ the construction I mention. "One of the only" has the same
meaning as "one of the few" in the example I gave, "Canada is one of the
only countries I've been to." But this doesn't involve the "one of" at
all; "the only" has the same meaning as "the few" in "The only countries
I've been to are the United States, Canada, and France." In fact, I would
guess at this point that "the only" followed by a noun (phrase) that
denotes three or more items has the same denotation as "the few", and the
only difference is what is emphasized. (The reason for the caveat about
three or more items is that "few" is not used with singular nouns and is
only rarely used to describe sets of two.)
Robert Bannister
> John Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net> writes:
>
>
>>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:37:14 -0500, MC <cop...@AMZAPca.inter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <hdo2qvc9fl23lts41...@4ax.com>,
>>>John Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Our CBC has let me down again.
>>>>After hearing "Canada is one of the only countries to..." on the
>>>>twelve o'clock news, my peeve detector/processor kicked in, and I
>>>>didn't hear what it is we're doing or not doing.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That has my Seal of Approval.
>>
>>
>>>And if it is, why can't I say "Canada is one of the only countries
>>>I've never visited"?
>>
>>What is the meaning of 'only' in this case?
>>
>>I can't pin down exactly which language rule is being broken, but I
>>know when I smell a break.
>
>
> "One of the only..." doesn't break any language rules; it just
> contains a superfluous word, viz. "only". You are one of the only
> countries to do thus & so if & only if you are one of the countries to
> do thus & so. There is nothing in the sentence for "only" to limit or
> emphasize.
>
> I suspect that this solecism is a blend of "The only country" & "One
> of the few countries".
>
> only countries that...", "only" is semantically superfluous in that
> the "the" suffices to exclude other countries; but "only" adds some
> (usually welcome) emphasis. But with "one of the" there is no
> uniqueness to emphasize.
So are you saying that "Only Canada and the USA..." is wrong? If not,
then what's different about "...are the only countries"?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> "One of the few" implies a small number; "few" is fairly definable.
>
> "One of the only" implies to me that the speaker/writer is not thinking
> about what is being said/written. (How many is "the only"? Without
> further context, it's *the one*. "One of the one" just doesn't work.)
I think you are confusing etymology and meaning. "Only" is much more
restrictive than "few" - it means there aren't any others:
"Only John and Mary believe this"
"John is one of the only two people who believe this"
True, John is also one of the few people who believe it, but 'few' could
be half a dozen. The 'only' means he is one of a very restricted group.
>
> I cannot think of a circumstance where I would say "one of the only." It
> may be that it's idiomatic in some regions and not in others.
Others have shown that it has been used by some highly respected writers
in the past as well as in the present, so I don't think it can be
regional. Maybe the dislike of it is restricted to those who had a
particular kind of education, eg Miss Thistlebottom.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
No they don't. They only use it in cases where they are referring to a
highly restricted group. In fact, there are so many countries around the
world that have French-language road signs, that 'one of the only' is
not applicable. Belgium is one of the few countries that has dual
language road signs, but again, I wouldn't use 'one of the only' here,
because I suspect there are a greater number of them than I know about.
However, if - just for the sake of argument - it were true that only
Ireland and Belgium did this, then it would be perfectly sensible to say:
"Only Ireland and Belgium have dual language road signs."
"Belgium is one of the only (two) countries that has dual language road
signs."
Not 'few', because 'few' implies a larger, less restricted number. The
'only' means there are no others apart from those the speaker defines.
--
Rob Bannister
CyberCypher
in news:bo15hq$uhr$1...@netnews.upenn.edu on 02 Nov 2003:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:24:40 -0500, Maria Conlon
> <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>> Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
>>
>>> I assume you intend "non-idiomatic" to mean 'not constituting an
>>> idiom', not 'unidiomatic'. And the answer is that "only" entails
>>> 'few', so "one of the only" entails 'one of the few' (and in
>>> "one of the only", I think, the other entailments of "only" are
>>> rendered negligible or moot, so "one of the only means 'one of
>>> the few'. I'm not sure if I'm using the word "entail" properly
>>> here).
>>
>> "One of the few" implies a small number; "few" is fairly
>> definable.
>>
>> "One of the only" implies to me that the speaker/writer is not
>> thinking about what is being said/written. (How many is "the
>> only"? Without further context, it's *the one*. "One of the one"
>> just doesn't work.)
>
> Does "The only countries I've been to are the United States and
> Canada" sound odd to you? In this sentence, and in others with
> "only" as an adjective with a plural noun, "only" means 'few (and
> there are no others)'.
Does "Have you ever been to Canada or the USA?" sound odd to you? If
not, then why should "Yes, I have ever been to Canada and the USA"
sound odd. It sure sounds odd to me.
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote:
>
>> "One of the few" implies a small number; "few" is fairly definable.
>>
>> "One of the only" implies to me that the speaker/writer is not
>> thinking about what is being said/written. (How many is "the only"?
>> Without further context, it's *the one*. "One of the one" just
>> doesn't work.)
>
> I think you are confusing etymology and meaning. "Only" is much more
> restrictive than "few" - it means there aren't any others:
> "Only John and Mary believe this"
> "John is one of the only two people who believe this"
And what's wrong with "John is one of only two people who believe this"?
(No "the.")
I was talking about "one of _the_ _only"_ as opposed to "one of the
few." "Only John and Mary believe this" is fine. I have no objection to
it. But... it's not an example of the use of "only" that I am talking
about. "John is one of the only two people who believe this" is bad. He
is "one of only two people" or "one of two people." Adding "the" before
"only" is a Sin of Construction. (How's that phrase? <smile>)
> True, John is also one of the few people who believe it, but 'few'
> could be half a dozen. The 'only' means he is one of a very
> restricted group.
So why did you bother to add "two" in the sentence above? ("John is one
of the only two people who believe this.") And anyway, "six" can be a
very restricted group, too. Think about it: Six out of a million. "The"
only two out of seven.
>>
>> I cannot think of a circumstance where I would say "one of the
>> only." It may be that it's idiomatic in some regions and not in
>> others.
>
> Others have shown that it has been used by some highly respected
> writers in the past as well as in the present, so I don't think it
> can be regional. Maybe the dislike of it is restricted to those who
> had a particular kind of education, eg Miss Thistlebottom.
That's Sr. Thistlebottom. But it matters not -- "one of the only" is not
interchangeable with "one of the few" in my dialect, region, education,
or mind. YMSTV.
Maria Conlon
One of the few; perhaps the only.
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote:
>> Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
>>
>>> I assume you intend "non-idiomatic" to mean 'not constituting an
>>> idiom', not 'unidiomatic'. And the answer is that "only" entails
>>> 'few', so "one of the only" entails 'one of the few' (and in "one
>>> of the only", I think, the other entailments of "only" are rendered
>>> negligible or moot, so "one of the only means 'one of the few'. I'm
>>> not sure if I'm using the word "entail" properly here).
>>
>> "One of the few" implies a small number; "few" is fairly definable.
>>
>> "One of the only" implies to me that the speaker/writer is not
>> thinking about what is being said/written. (How many is "the only"?
>> Without
>> further context, it's *the one*. "One of the one" just doesn't work.)
>
> Does "The only countries I've been to are the United States and
> Canada" sound odd to you?
Not at all. (They are the only countries _I've_ been to, as well.
<smile>)
>......In this sentence, and in others with "only" as an
> adjective with a plural noun, "only" means 'few (and there are no
> others)'.
Not if preceded by "one of the." (Not to me, in any case.)
>
> If it does not sound odd to you, then why should "Canada is one of the
> only countries I've been to" imply that the speaker is not thinking if
> "The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada"
> does not?
Because of "one of the only" is not the same as "the only."
>
>> I cannot think of a circumstance where I would say "one of the
>> only." It may be that it's idiomatic in some regions and not in
>> others.
>
> It could be. Perhaps it's new. But I want to stress that there's
> nothing about it to suggest that the person who uses it isn't
> thinking about what
> it means. I don't think you're seeing what the meaning of "only" is.
The meaning of _only_ is, per m-w online:
Main Entry: 1on·ly
Pronunciation: 'On-lE
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English AnlIc, from An one -- more
at ONE
Date: before 12th century
1 : unquestionably the best : PEERLESS
2 : alone in its class or kind : SOLE <an only child>
I think we're talking about meaning 2, and that's what I think "only"
means in the sentences we've been discussing.
In my previous reply (above), I suggested that "one of the only" is,
perhaps, idiomatic in some regions. Maybe I should have said "for some
age groups" or "for some people." Anyway, as I'm learning, it doesn't
pay to analyze idioms, even ones that may not be real idioms, or may not
be real idioms *yet.* Idioms often don't mean what they say -- or say
what they mean, and the analyzing seems to stir up trouble.
Maria Conlon
Done analyzing.
R J Valentine
} That's Sr. Thistlebottom. But it matters not -- "one of the only" is not
} interchangeable with "one of the few" in my dialect, region, education,
} or mind. YMSTV.
That's Sr. _Mary_ Thistlebottom to you.
} Maria Conlon
} One of the few; perhaps the only.
Perhaps of the only proud Marine?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:ar...@wicked.smart.net>
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote:
>
> } That's Sr. Thistlebottom. But it matters not -- "one of the only"
> is not } interchangeable with "one of the few" in my dialect, region,
> education, } or mind. YMSTV.
>
> That's Sr. _Mary_ Thistlebottom to you.
YAC,S. And actually, in elementary school, we never knew the nuns' last
names. It was Sr. Mary Loretta, Sr. Mary Pius, Sr. Mary Joseph, and so
on.
>
> } Maria Conlon
> } One of the few; perhaps the only.
>
> Perhaps of the only proud Marine?
Marine? Me?
Maria Conlon
CyberCypher
news:bo2af1$16vjen$1...@ID-113669.news.uni-berlin.de on 02 Nov 2003:
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Maria Conlon wrote:
>>
>>> "One of the few" implies a small number; "few" is fairly
>>> definable.
>>>
>>> "One of the only" implies to me that the speaker/writer is not
>>> thinking about what is being said/written. (How many is "the
>>> only"? Without further context, it's *the one*. "One of the one"
>>> just doesn't work.)
>>
>> I think you are confusing etymology and meaning. "Only" is much
>> more restrictive than "few" - it means there aren't any others:
>> "Only John and Mary believe this"
>> "John is one of the only two people who believe this"
>
> And what's wrong with "John is one of only two people who believe
> this"? (No "the.")
Ah, yes, this is very good. This solves one of the problems. When there
is a number, eg "the only 2", "the only" is no good, but "only 2" is
perfectly fine.
Tony Cooper
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>R J Valentine wrote:
>> Maria Conlon wrote:
>>
>> } That's Sr. Thistlebottom. But it matters not -- "one of the only"
>> is not } interchangeable with "one of the few" in my dialect, region,
>> education, } or mind. YMSTV.
>>
>> That's Sr. _Mary_ Thistlebottom to you.
>
>YAC,S. And actually, in elementary school, we never knew the nuns' last
>names. It was Sr. Mary Loretta, Sr. Mary Pius, Sr. Mary Joseph, and so
>on.
True, and it causes something to occur to me that I never thought of
before: do they legally change their names? Is a nun's driver's
license in the name of Sr Mary Joseph or in the name of Dora Flanagan?
How about their social security name or name for reporting to the
IRS?
Aaron J. Dinkin
All right, you've caught me out there: it looks like the argument I made
that's quoted above with ">>" isn't valid. However: if "Yes, I have ever
been to Canada and the USA" were grammatical in some dialect (which, as
far as I know, it's not), it _wouldn't_ be because of sloppy thinking, or
a failure to understand the meaning of "ever", and it wouldn't be
meaningless. The meaning of "ever" in the putative "Yes, I have ever been
to Canada and the USA" isn't different from the meaning of "ever" in
"Have you ever been to Canada or the USA?" The difference is only a
difference in the distribution of "ever" and what sentences it's allowed
to appear in.
That's what I'm trying to get across here. I clearly can't say that "one
of the only..." is grammatical in all dialects. But there's no grounds
for saying that, in the dialects where it is grammatical, it is because
of sloppy thinking. The thinking which leads to "only" is just the same
as that which leads to "few" in other dialects; the only difference in an
arbitrary constraint on the distribution of "only" in some dialects which
isn't present in others. It's not meaningless, and there's no failure to
understand the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word is the same.
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> Maria Conlon wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "One of the few" implies a small number; "few" is fairly
>>> definable.
>>>
>>> "One of the only" implies to me that the speaker/writer is not
>>> thinking about what is being said/written. (How many is "the
>>> only"? Without further context, it's *the one*. "One of the one"
>>> just doesn't work.)
>>
>> I think you are confusing etymology and meaning. "Only" is much
>> more restrictive than "few" - it means there aren't any others:
>> "Only John and Mary believe this" "John is one of the only two
>> people who believe this"
>
>
> And what's wrong with "John is one of only two people who believe
> this"? (No "the.")
>
> I was talking about "one of _the_ _only"_ as opposed to "one of the
> few." "Only John and Mary believe this" is fine. I have no objection
> to it. But... it's not an example of the use of "only" that I am
> talking about. "John is one of the only two people who believe this"
> is bad. He is "one of only two people" or "one of two people." Adding
> "the" before "only" is a Sin of Construction. (How's that phrase?
> <smile>)
Oh dear! Now we're down to sins and belief. I never learnt how to say
"Hail Mary", but perhaps I'd better start.
>> True, John is also one of the few people who believe it, but 'few'
>> could be half a dozen. The 'only' means he is one of a very
>> restricted group.
>
>
> So why did you bother to add "two" in the sentence above? ("John is
> one of the only two people who believe this.") And anyway, "six" can
> be a very restricted group, too. Think about it: Six out of a
> million. "The" only two out of seven.
Agreed. I've been thinking about that M-W definition you supplied -
something like 'sole member of its class'. It seems to me that, by
extension, you can make this sole members of a class. However, it must
be restricted: six out of a million qualifies for 'one of the only' in
my book, but not ten thousand out of a million. I do think I rather
cheated by picking an example containing a number. I would have
preferred a straight 'one of the only' sentence, but I couldn't think of
one that made my point clear.
>
>>> I cannot think of a circumstance where I would say "one of the
>>> only." It may be that it's idiomatic in some regions and not in
>>> others.
>>
>> Others have shown that it has been used by some highly respected
>> writers in the past as well as in the present, so I don't think it
>> can be regional. Maybe the dislike of it is restricted to those who
>> had a particular kind of education, eg Miss Thistlebottom.
>
>
> That's Sr. Thistlebottom. But it matters not -- "one of the only" is
> not interchangeable with "one of the few" in my dialect, region,
> education, or mind. YMSTV.
Sorry I don't understand YMSTV (you mustn't savour television?), but I
was trying to say that the two expressions are not completely
interchangeable. When I say 'one of the only', I mean there aren't any
others, so it is much stronger than 'one of the few'. If you are one of
the chosen few, you will get picked, but if you are one of the only
chosen, no-one else will.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Why?
--
Rob Bannister
CyberCypher
news:3FA5A456...@it.net.au on 03 Nov 2003:
A very good question. This is one of those instances in which native
speakers will often disagree, because it is a matter of intuition
about when the definite article is desirable regardless of its
grammaticality. Good grammar does not necessarily make good English.
More specifically, I like to trim as much fat as possible from formal
prose. "the" adds nothing to the meaning of the phrase in the above
sentence. Eliminating "the" reduces the word count and only a
syllable is lost --- I am assuming that we don't care about the loss
of a syllable here --- it's not required for rhyme or meter.
If the sentence were "{Here/There/They/We} are the only two people
who believe this", "the" is necessary; it adds the meaning intended
by the definite article. In certain cases, however, "two" might be
unnecessary; it would be allowable redundancy, though, even for me.
The final reason is the context of the sentences above. There is
none. The argument is too abstract to have much meaning. Every
arguable instance has to be justifiable within a larger piece of
discourse. There is no larger piece of discourse here. All we are
discussing is disembodied phrases and rogue sentences. That is not
realistic or meaningful. It's akin to someone asking if the two words
"married" and "with" can appear in that order in a sentence. The
answer is most certainly yes, but there are restrictions. What
sentence is the someone asking about? Often it's something like
*"John married with Mary last year" or *"John is going to get married
with Mary next week". It is even possible to imagine some instances
in which the latter would be acceptable, but the context would have
to be larger than a single sentence.
Too often we make linguistic and stylistic judgments without
sufficient contextual information. Often the answer to a usage
question is, or ought to be, "Yes, you can say that, but why would
you want to?"
I also am one of those who insists on putting "only" immediately in
front of the word or phrase it modifies in formal prose rather than
in front of the main verb when it modifies the direct object of the
main verb [1], eg
A: What did you buy?
B: I bought only bread [2].
A: Why didn't you buy peanut butter and jelly too?
B: Because I had only enough for bread [3]. Now I'm broke.
Notes:
[1] This is not related to the question here but
serves to illustrate my bias.
[2] I don't like "I only bought bread" as an answer here.
[3] I don't like "Because I only had enough for bread" here.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> I was trying to say that the two expressions are not completely
> interchangeable. When I say 'one of the only', I mean there aren't any
> others, so it is much stronger than 'one of the few'. If you are one of
> the chosen few, you will get picked, but if you are one of the only
> chosen, no-one else will.
I don't quite understand the distinction you're making here. If you're
_the_ only chosen, no one else will be chosen. If you're _one of_ the only
chosen, others will be chosen as well, but not many. If you're one of the
chosen few, well, others will be chosen as well, but not many. There's a
difference in emphasis, possibly ("few" emphasizes smallness, "only"
emphasizes exclusion); and "the only chosen" doesn't strike me as a very
natural turn of phrase; but I think they have the same denotative meaning.
Jerry Friedman
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:24:40 -0500, Maria Conlon <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
> >
> >> I assume you intend "non-idiomatic" to mean 'not constituting an
> >> idiom', not 'unidiomatic'.
Right.
> >> And the answer is that "only" entails 'few', so
> >> "one of the only" entails 'one of the few' (and in "one of the only", I
> >> think, the other entailments of "only" are rendered negligible or moot, so
> >> "one of the only means 'one of the few'. I'm not sure if I'm using the
> >> word "entail" properly here).
> >
> > "One of the few" implies a small number; "few" is fairly definable.
> >
> > "One of the only" implies to me that the speaker/writer is not thinking
> > about what is being said/written. (How many is "the only"? Without
> > further context, it's *the one*. "One of the one" just doesn't work.)
>
> Does "The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada"
> sound odd to you?
No, but what does sound odd to me is, "The few countries I've been to
are the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Guatemala." (Two added to agree
with "few".)
What I'm arguing is that "only" is interchangeable with "few" in the
expression "[number] of the only [plural noun]", but in no others, so
that's why that expression is an idiom.
> In this sentence, and in others with "only" as an
> adjective with a plural noun, "only" means 'few (and there are no
> others)'.
I think you need to revise that a little. It's more like "relatively
few". I can say "The only countries I've been to are those of the
Western Hemisphere", but I can't use "few" in that context.
> If it does not sound odd to you, then why should "Canada is one of the
> only countries I've been to" imply that the speaker is not thinking if
> "The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada" does not?
Because the primary meaning of "only" is that there are no others. So
the second sentence means, "I've been to the U.S. and Canada, but no
countries other than those." Perfectly reasonable. But the first
sentence means, "I've been to a certain set of countries, of which
Canada is one, but to no countries other than that set." The set is
defined precisely as the countries I've been to, so the last clause is
tautological.
However, there may be a better way to account for it. The primary
meaning of "only" is that there are no others, but there is some sort
of secondary meaning of "relatively few". As you said in the other
thread, 'One can't say "The only countries I haven't been to are those
that are in South America, Central America, Asia, Africa, and eastern
Europe" except as a joke.'
So what's the upper limit on "only"? I suspect it's a proportion.
And I think it's at least one-half. "I've been to every country in
Europe and Asia, but those are the only countries I've been to."
So I think what you're doing in "one of the only" is changing "only"
from "there are no others (and what I'm talking about isn't the vast
majority)" to an extended version of what you said above: "not the
vast majority (and there are no others)". Then the tautological "no
others" part, which bothers me and other people who object, is
unimportant compared to the "not the vast majority" part. Although
this is not a big change in meaning, I still think there's a case for
saying it's an idiom.
Also, the charge of vagueness applies until there's some kind of
consensus on how many "one of the only" can be.
...
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Bannister
> the inimitable Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in
> news:3FA5A456...@it.net.au on 03 Nov 2003:
I really had to snip it all, as it was getting far too long, but you
argued your point very persuasively even if I still don't quite agree.
As for the position of 'only': I do agree there, but I don't always do
it myself, particularly in speech.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I had to read that twice, but I agree: it is a question of
emphasis and precisely in the way you state.
--
Rob Bannister
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote:
>> the inimitable Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in
>> news:3FA5A456...@it.net.au on 03 Nov 2003:
>
> I really had to snip it all, as it was getting far too long, but
> you argued your point very persuasively even if I still don't
> quite agree.
I take this as a sign of success. I said the same thing to my one
brilliant undergraduate student at The U of Iowa 30 years ago when he
wrote an excellent paper on the theory of tragedy. I gave him an A+ but
I didn't quite agree. At that level, it really isn't necessary.
> As for the position of 'only': I do agree there, but
> I don't always do it myself, particularly in speech.
Speech is a problem. It doesn't like to conform to stylebook rules and
regulations. Not even the speech that slips and trips off my own
tongue. I catch myself from time to time using "only" in the wrong
position for formal written prose. But then, it's only speech.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> "Aaron J. Dinkin" <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<bo15hq$uhr$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
>> Does "The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada"
>> sound odd to you?
>
> No, but what does sound odd to me is, "The few countries I've been to
> are the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Guatemala." (Two added to agree
> with "few".)
Fair enough. It sounds odd to me too. But I think it has the same meaning
as "The only countries I've been to are...". It's odd because "only"
emphasizes exclusivity over fewness, and the point of the sentence is the
exclusivity, so "only" is more natural. But I don't think the meaning is
changed by substituting "few" for only, or even deleting both of them;
the exclusivity is expressed (though not emphasized) by the "the", and
the fewness by the list itself.
As for the rest of what you say - well, it pretty much makes sense to me.
and as one of the conventions of Usenet is that one generally doesn't
follow up to things one doesn't find fault with or have anything to add to,
well, I'll leave it at that.
R J Valentine
...
} As for the rest of what you say - well, it pretty much makes sense to me.
} and as one of the conventions of Usenet is that one generally doesn't
} follow up to things one doesn't find fault with or have anything to add to,
} well, I'll leave it at that.
I can't argue with that.
(The only states I've been in are the ones on or east of the Mississippi
on a road trip in July of 1978 (plus the ones on the route from Chicago to
San Francisco back in 1964, plus Alaska on the way to Japan and Hawaii on
the way back, plus Texas this last April). But more than a few.)
Jerry Friedman
...
> So I think what you're doing in "one of the only" is changing "only"
> from "there are no others (and what I'm talking about isn't the vast
> majority)" to an extended version of what you said above: "not the
> vast majority (and there are no others)".
...
I forgot that Ben Zimmer had posted an example from Walter Scott, so
maybe it's not you, Aaron, doing the changing. Maybe it had been done
two hundred years ago and worked itself into your language but not
mine.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> On 3 Nov 2003 14:54:04 -0800, Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Aaron J. Dinkin" <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<bo15hq$uhr$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> >
> >> Does "The only countries I've been to are the United States and Canada"
> >> sound odd to you?
> >
> > No, but what does sound odd to me is, "The few countries I've been to
> > are the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Guatemala." (Two added to agree
> > with "few".)
>
> Fair enough. It sounds odd to me too. But I think it has the same meaning
> as "The only countries I've been to are...". It's odd because "only"
> emphasizes exclusivity over fewness, and the point of the sentence is the
> exclusivity, so "only" is more natural. But I don't think the meaning is
> changed by substituting "few" for only, or even deleting both of them;
> the exclusivity is expressed (though not emphasized) by the "the", and
> the fewness by the list itself.
I think we're starting to agree.
> As for the rest of what you say - well, it pretty much makes sense to me.
> and as one of the conventions of Usenet is that one generally doesn't
> follow up to things one doesn't find fault with or have anything to add to,
> well, I'll leave it at that.
Ah, that inner glow of making sense to a linguist.
--
Jerry Friedman
CyberCypher
I think part of the problem causing some of our disagreements at
least is that I am making some social judgments about usages and you
are making, as far as I can tell, only linguistic judgments. They
don't mix well.
But I wouldn't necessarily call every instance of what I might call
"sloppy speech" or "sloppy" writing" a product of "sloppy thinking".
It might be the result of laziness or a lack of time or a transient
blasé attitude. Just as someone keeps reminding us that the price of
liberty is eternal vigilance, the only way to always speak clearly is
to be constantly aware of what one is saying and how one is saying
it. It's like driving in that respect; if I don't pay total attention
to everything around me when piloting a motorcycle through city
traffic at 80-100 kph, my chances of having an accident are
significantly increased. I haven't had a crash yet --- some near
misses, but I am ever vigilant.
I also agree that there there are dialects in which the most godawful
usages are accepted as normal and idiomatic, but that is a social
judgment ("godawful", I mean).
Sometimes linguists sound as goody-two-shoesy as the serious PC
crowd. Those are always the times when they feel the need to remind
the rest of us that XYZ is a rule-governed dialect of English that is
inherently no better or worse than ABC, but this all boils down to
something like "That way. but for the grace of god, speak I". Yes, it
is an accident that the dialects of the powerful reign in all
societies, and that English is, for the nonce, the world's lingua
franca. If there's anything left of the world in another 200 years,
the new lingua franca will probably be Chinese.
The social value of each dialect is more important than the
linguistic equality of all. Different venues, different values.