You know I hate it when people mock English-as-a-second-language speakers for their grammatical missteps. If your sense of humor is so unrefined as to find ESL speakers’ errors jestworthy, I think you’re a boor. Internet society doesn’t think the same, but then again, Internet society also thinks it’s acceptable to shout “FIRST!” in a comment thread and that being racist when you know better is somehow subversive.
So I hope you won’t think me hypocritical for mocking someone whose knowledge of English is clearly lacking. There’s a key difference, though, in that English is this person’s native language. On an old post talking about one of the only, I recently got this comment:
“‘One of the only’ is poor grammar because ‘one of’ implies plural and ‘the only’ implies one. ‘One of the one’ doesn’t do much for logic.”
No.
If you have gone a sizable portion of your life speaking and hearing English (which I assume one has to have to be bloviating on what’s poor grammar) and you think that only implies one, then you do not know English. And yet, this is a common misconception:
“How can something be ‘one of the only’ when ‘only’ means ‘one?’”
“‘One of the only’ – could this be correct usage? ‘Only’ means ‘alone, solely.’”
“Only refers to one or sole and has no meaning.”
Guys, I don’t know where you think you’ve gotten the authority to lecture people on English, but if you can’t understand the meaning of only, you do not have that authority.* Sure, in some situations, only refers to a single item, as in:
(1a) This is my only stick of gum. Do not eat it.
But only really means “this and no more”, where “this” can be singular or plural or mass. I could just as readily say:
(1b) These are my only sticks of gum. Do not eat them.
You absolutely cannot be fluent in English and not have been exposed to perfectly acceptable usages of plural only. Google Books N-grams shows that over the past 200 years of published works, one in every 100,000 pairs of words is only two. Including only 3/4/5 gets us up to 1 in 50,000. Given that a person hears around that many words each day, and that there are many other uses of plural only, it’s a conservative estimate to say that a fluent English speaker is exposed to plural only at least once a day.
Non-singular only isn’t questionable, it isn’t obscure, it isn’t rare, it isn’t debatable. Only does not mean or imply or refer to “one” in general. If you think it does, you are not sufficiently informed to correct anyone’s usage.
–
*: Which is weird, because even some authors who are well-regarded by the literary set (though not by linguists) claim this. Richard Lederer & Richard Dowis’s book “Sleeping Dogs Don’t Lay” contains an absurd assertion that one of the only both is oxymoronic and new. Neither is true, not even a little, and yet Lederer is the author of a newspaper column as well as tens of books on English.
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 18, 2012 at 1:46 pm
George Corley
I wonder about how far your thoughts about making fun on non-native English go. I agree that it’s not something one should do in a mean-spirited way, and there are many contexts where it is simply offensive. But I have a number of friends who are non-native speakers of English, and I do occasionally tease them about their mistakes. If it works right, there’s a mutual understanding that this is just another way to help them learn. If they react to negatively, I might lay off, thinking they’re taking it personally. I consider it pretty much the same when a Chinese friend makes fun of a mistake I make in Chinese.
And of course, on the Internet, there are occasionally examples of accents that are so terrifically bad that it’s a little difficult not to laugh. I generally don’t directly address people I don’t know about their English — that gets socially tricky.
September 18, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Jonathon Owen
Yet another example of a rule based on an overly narrow or literal interpretation of meaning. I wonder why this is such a strong strain in prescriptivism. Why are so many people so opposed to metaphorical or extended senses, even when they’re familiar and well established? The OED has a citation for “only two” from 1325. And although Google Ngrams shows “one of the only” increasing considerably during the last 50 years, it wasn’t exactly unknown before then.
September 18, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Nita
The idea that only is necessarily singular is not the fruit of a knowledge of language, but of an overly technical mind with too little to think about. I don’t believe I had heard the assertion before ~ but then, your blog is the only thing I read on proper English usage.
September 18, 2012 at 4:38 pm
linguischtick
Richard Lederer is a “well regarded” author? I think you mean “well known”. Can’t think of the last time I went looking for a book by him because I needed to look something up. Treat his work as entertainment, not scholarship.
September 18, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Bill Davis
Great post. “One of the only” is only (hee hee) ungrammatical if the following object is singular (” *One of the only car”). It’s amazing what people will call ungrammatical. I see this kind of mistakenly assertion in a grammar forum nearly every day. Thanks again. Your is one of the only blogs that gets it…
September 19, 2012 at 5:14 pm
David Craig
Regarding making fun of the English of non-native speakers, there was a little bit, I think it was in The Perfect Squelch, a regular feature of some now defunct magazine, about a heckler who kept correcting the English of a non-native speaker who was giving some professional talk at a symposium. The heckler finally said, “You seem to have some problems with your English.” The speaker responded, “Yes, and I have similar problems with seven other languages.”
Regarding Richard Lederer: He writes for Vocabula Review. ‘Nuff said.
September 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm
linguischtick
I looked up “Vocabula Review”, and it’s obviously not an academic or professional publication. For goodness’ sake they even advertise that it’s about “misused” English. No professional would EVER make such a value judgement. Nuff said indeed.
October 1, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Lydia
Huh. I don’t think I’ve run into this argument before, but I think I may have encountered some bad writing that resulted from it. On a new hire letter I once received: “You have joined one of the nation’s top research universities and only one of three such institutions in….” It struck me a slightly funny (as opposed to joining all three institutions?), but I’ve never had a theory as to why it was written that way. Now I’m wondering if it was an attempt to correct a perfectly fine phrase “…and one of only three such institutions…”
October 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Gabe
George: Sure, I don’t think that someone is a bad person for making fun of their friends in a light-hearted and understood way, especially if it doubles as a chance to point out a rectifiable error.
Jonathon/Nita: Good points both.
linguischtick/David: Of course. The trouble with “well-regarded” is that it omits who’s doing the regarding. Linguists and academics obviously ignore Lederer’s dreck, but judging by the number of people who’ve recommended his books to me and responded confusedly to my sour expression, society as a whole regards him well. You’re right that it was poorly put, and I’ve edited it.
October 5, 2012 at 7:36 am
Mar Rojo
Specific: That is one of only three days on which I can get time to myself.
Non-specific: That is one of the only days on which I can get to myself.
Both OK to me. And what of, “They are the only two days I get to myself·?
October 17, 2012 at 2:26 am
Link love: language (47) « Sentence first
[...] Non-singular only is not debatable. [...]
October 17, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Words and how we use them « Notes from underground
[...] Non-singular only is not debatable. [...]
October 23, 2012 at 11:39 am
kk rousseau
Thanks for teaching me a new word: bloviate. Fantastico!
March 26, 2013 at 12:44 am
What fresh hell is this? | my nerves are bad to-night
[...] If you have gone a sizable portion of your life speaking and hearing English (which I assume one has to have to be bloviating on what’s poor grammar) and you think that only implies one, then you do not know English. read more [...]