The "One of the Only" Kerfuffle:
Last week I was widely quoted in the press referring to the Heller case involving the constitutionality of the DC Gun ban as:
Little did I know that "one of the only" would turn out to be so noteworthy.Who da Who'd a thunk it?
one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to interpret an important provision of our Constitution unencumbered by precedent.As soon as the quote appeared, I received a couple emails correcting my use of "one of the only." As one correspondent wrote:
You're quoted in the morning's [Washington Post], p. 1, above the fold: "This may be one of the only cases ...." Eeeek! What, pray tell, does "one of the only X" mean?! One hears it all the time, but parse it if you will, and see what you get.A few minutes later, another wrote:
Let me introduce you to a useful word: few. As in,,,this may be one of the few cases in our lifetime.... In view of your substitution of "only," it bears mention that the oft-abused "unique" means one of a kind. Mitchell Strickler, Yale Law 1961But then the emails stopped. So I was taken aback when the Sunday Boston Globe ran an entire column, entitled "Almost Unique," analyzing the correctness of my usage:
AS THE DISTRICT of Columbia's gun ban squared off against the Second Amendment last week, Georgetown University constitutional scholar Randy Barnett was widely quoted on the momentousness of the event: "This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting . . . an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent."After listing several authorities in support of the criticism, the column then turns to an interesting defense of the usage:
Objection! e-mailed reader Sue Bass of Belmont. "One of the only cases" doesn't make sense, she protested; it should logically be "one of the few."
But one of the only has its defenders. James Kilpatrick, in "Fine Print," points out that it is no less logical than one of the best or one of the most talented. "The best advice I can offer is to shake your head and get on with what you are writing," he concludes.I must say that this kerfuffle brought to mind the exchange between Will Farrell and Dustin Hoffman in Stranger Than Fiction. When Farrell's character, IRS Agent Harold Crick, tells Hoffman's character, literature professor Jules Hilbert, that the voice he hears apparently narrating his life said disturbingly: "Little did he know that this seemingly innocuous act would result in his death," Hilbert suddenly becomes interested and responds: "Little did he know? I've written papers on "Little did he know." I've taught classes on "Little did he know."
Earlier usage gurus are silent on the topic, though there's some indirect evidence of their attitude. For instance, the critic Edmund Wilson, reviewing a1940s potboiler, observed that "one of the only attempts at a literary heightening of effect is the substitution for the simple 'said' of other, more pretentious verbs" like "shrilled" and "barked."
Usage maven Sir Ernest Gowers liked this quote enough - despite its use of "one of the only" - that he included it in his 1965 edition of Fowler's "Modern English Usage," as a comment on "said."
How long has this been going on? A Google Books search dates one of the only to the 1770s, when a traveler reported that "business, and making money, is one of the only employments" of Rotterdam. But only was already losing its singularity. The 1989 Oxford English Dictionary gave the sense "one (or, by extension, two or more), of which there exist no more . . . of the kind," and quoted Sir Philip Sidney, in the 16th century, using "the only two."
This expansive sense of "only" is not just an Anglo-Saxon aberration. In "Swann's Way," Proust's narrator says that a certain day was "one of the only" ("un des seuls") on which he was not unhappy. In German, according to University of Wisconsin professor Joseph Salmons, one of the only (eine der einzigen, etc.) is entirely OK.
Multilinguist Steve Dodson, at the blog Language Hat, said one of the only is common in Russian and in Spanish (un de los únicos). Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at UC Berkeley, sent some examples in Italian (along with a caution from an Italian linguist who calls the usage illogical).
And as Bill Walsh argues at Blogslot, his editing blog, one of the only makes its own kind of sense. "Webster's New World defines only as 'alone of its or their kind,' and nobody objects to 'only two people.' . . . If 'only two people' have done something, wouldn't one of those people be one of only two people, or one of the only people, who have done it?"
Once we had the only two, in other words, we were on the slippery slope to one of the only. And in everyday, unedited English, we prefer it to one of the few by a Google hit ratio of 3 to 1. Nobody has to use it, but everyone speaking English can expect to hear it. After two and a half centuries, we should be getting used to it.
Little did I know that "one of the only" would turn out to be so noteworthy.
Update: I now notice that the BBC changed the quote for its audience to "our Constitution" from my reference to "the Constitution." Makes sense, but is still an interesting liberty taken with a direct quote.
1. "One of the only" is synonymous with "one of the few"; that
2. this phrase is in common usage, as witnessed by its million-plus Google hits; that
3. unparsable idioms are common elements of not only English but all languages!; and that
4. you are glad that you were able to help them with English, which, after all, is sometimes a very difficult language to master.
We have people saying things like "The party was so fun" instead of "so much fun." And the Barnetts of the world will pick up on it and try to make it acceptable usage.
Only the lonely (dum-dum-dum-dumdy-doo-wah)
Know the way Randy feels tonight (ooh-yay-yay-yay-yeah)
Only the lonely (dum-dum-dum-dumdy-doo-wah)
Know this feelin' ain't right (dum-dum-dum-dumdy-doo-wah)
Apologies to the late, great Roy Orbison.
I hate to break it to you Visitor Again, but to me "so fun" is already acceptable! I suspect it is to a huge number of other English speakers as well. For example, everyone I know.
It already is common usage.
Who, exactly, decides whether it is 'proper' or 'preferred' usage?
Jeez, people, can we analyze rather than ostracize, a bit, here?
FWIW, a "so" without any correlating element, not used as a conjunction, is sub-standard *written* usage. There is a completely separate word "sooooo" which translates "very" in spoken usage.
Cheers,
PGE
The preceeding parses as an English sentence. Ergo, "one of the only" is a correct usage.
With O at the end
You could easily point to several cases that the SC will interpret in our lifetime and say "Those are the only cases that will be interpreted in our lifetime, and btw, that there Heller case is one of them." Q.E.D.
You give your critics too much credit.
That seems to support Randy's original usage.
Hence: "Col. Mustard was one of the only people in the room at the time".
Nonlawyers don't have as many hangups about sense-preserving changes to direct quotes. You don't have to bracket a capitalization change in the Chicago Manual of Style, for example.
Very nice. Maybe I'll start up a blog and just for fun my first post might be about the phrase "one of the few". Will you come by the post similar thoughts in the comments? I'll need the traffic.
The NY Times referred to a "pilotless Predator drone" a few days ago. I had the remix playing in my head for several minutes.
Meaning not unclear, at least not to me.
You should note, along these lines, that the word "one" can also be plural. "See those apples? Those are the ones I was telling you about." "The ones you want are on the left side of the aisle." And to compound it, "There are twelve kids in her kindergarten class, but Susie and Mikey are the only ones my daughter wants to invite to her party."
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.