You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘only’ tag.
Pages
Quick Links
Search the Archives
Mostly Language Blogs
Mostly Not Language Blogs
Post Categories
Posts Often Visited
Posts Recently Added
Comments Recently Made
The Monthly Archives
Posts People Like
- Facebook grammar: "unlike" is valid
- The seductive fear that you're using words wrong
- Singular "they" and the many reasons why it's correct
- Til v. till v. 'til v. until
- National Grammar Day 2013: Ten More Grammar Myths, Debunked
- The subjunctive might be dying, if you ignore where it's going strong
- About
- So "twerk" is in a dictionary. What's that mean?
- Getting lectured by people who don't know English
- Formal language isn't the ideal
About The Blog
About Me
I'm Gabe Doyle, currently a postdoctoral scholar in the Language and Cognition Lab at Stanford University. Before that, I got a doctorate in linguistics from UC San Diego and a bachelor's in math from Princeton.
In my research, I look at how humans manage one of their greatest learning achievements: the acquisition of language. I build computational models of how people can learn language with cognitively-general processes and as few presuppositions as possible. Currently, I'm working on models for acquiring phonology and other constraint-based aspects of cognition.
I also examine how we can use large electronic resources, such as Twitter, to learn about how we speak to each other. Some of my recent work uses Twitter to map dialect regions in the United States.
Recent Tweets
- RT @KoryStamper: Just between gu and me, stupid. http://t.co/RWdWOlU41B 7 years ago
- RT @TeaAnd_OrCoffee: There are worse injustices, but: I'm still surprised when researchers advertise how little they pay their MTurkers (eg… 7 years ago
- RT @mcxfrank: Comments on reproducibility in developmental science: new post babieslearninglanguage.blogspot.com/2014/11/commen… 7 years ago
- RT @TeaAnd_OrCoffee: Guest @LanguageLog post on disfluencies like "uh" and "um" languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=15718 For ASL, see @kemmorey1 lab poster: … 7 years ago
Getting lectured by people who don’t know English
September 18, 2012 in comments, English, errors, grammar, hypocrisy, ipsedixitism, Uncategorized, words, writing | Tags: one of the only, only | 22 comments
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.
Rate this:
Want to share?
Like this: