American Prairie unlocks another 70k acres in Montana

> one of the only

That reminds me, I still have to put up the explanation at oneoftheonly.com for why this phrase doesn't make sense and is the new "could care less".

doesn't make sense because it's a contraction of "one of the one-ly" ?

I would like a non-native speaker to weigh in, but I gloss it as "there are ONLY a few and this is ONE OF them" and have never found that confusing or contradictory.

irregardless, I think we understand what the author meant

Words don't just have a single meaning.

Definition 3 from Merriam-Webster[1] of "only": FEW

I can say "one of the few", or "one of the only", and they both make perfect sense (and have the same meaning). You're being blindly prescriptive without even doing the legwork.

1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/only

What would be an alternative that conveys the same thing, in your opinion?

"few" is one of the meanings of "only". "One of the few" is a perfectly normal thing to say as well.

That's exactly the difference: "one of the few" necessarily implies scarcity, whereas you could say e.g. "one of the only grains of sand at the beach" while clearly there are many.

It makes sense both grammatically and logically; I think this might just be a parsing issue.

For example: Alaska and Hawaii are the only non-contiguous U.S. states. Alaska is one of the only non-contiguous states.

The 'only' is part of the group definition, implying the individual 'one' is part of a small subset of some sort.

Yes and I'm sure Webster will also say[1] that literally is a synonym for figuratively, because of how people also like to destroy the meaning of that word, and descriptivists will forcefully (and ironically) prescribe indifference to that.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

From the perspective that "only" can mean only one, sole, etc., this is still the correct usage of the idiom "one of the only". Idioms don't match the literal meanings of the words that make them up. Even if unsure, the context makes it clear.

This is in contrast to people mistaking one word for another.

I wouldn’t use that phase for sand grains exactly because there are so many. If you added a qualification like “… that is colored blue” then it sounds fine again to me.

as a nonnative fluent speaker, to me "one of the few" and "one of the only" mean the same thing, with "of the only" possibly being even less than "of the few"

edit: this conversation is a waste of time. retracting my comment

It's not that I don't understand what they want to express and how they use the phrase. I'm arguing that it's a poor phrase for the job, when "one of the few" exactly and necessarily implies that, while "one of the few" doesn't necessarily.

In fact it's even more vacuous ("nothingburger") because sometimes it's not even clear which way the person means it; if I say "I'm one of the only people to do a handstand on a Thursday morning", do I imagine that I'm in a large group or a small one?

[Edit: this paragraph added to respond to post below saying I'm not going to win, which was edited out and I couldn't respond to for some reason.] I'm not trying to "win" any more than I would try to tell people that literally isn't a synonym for figuratively; I know that ship has sailed. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to say it doesn't make sense, and I'm very aware that people get extremely angry about it for some reason, as if it's a personal affront. Not everyone has to buy into the cargo cult of descriptivism (particularly in the face of absurdity), differences of opinion are still allowed :)

Is your objection to the use of 'only' to refer to multiple things, or specifically the phrase "one of the only"? Would you consider "I am only five minutes late" to be valid?

(edit - for the record, this was in response to the first paragraph only, as the others were edited in afterwards)

My objection is in direct analogy to "could care less": it fails to rule out the very thing that is to be ruled out.

The grains of sand example should make it clear: it is not true that this grain is one of few at the beach, but it is true that it's one of the only. This makes it a poor expression for scarcity, and while obviously we know what was actually intended (as with "could care less"), that doesn't really make it any better.

This article claims the idiom predates Merriam-Webster.

https://grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/12/one-of-the-only.html

What is wrong with "could care less"? It is perfectly reasonable sarcasm.

I'm trying to understand but struggling -- so it is specifically the phrase "one of the only" that bothers you, but the example of "only five minutes late" is acceptable? And the issue is that "only" in that context doesn't mean a singular item, but rather a group of ambiguous size?

Words change. Meanings change. This has always happened an always will. If enough people are ironically using literally, even if unknowingly, then yeah, the meaning will change and we need things like dictionaries to describe this new meaning.

edit: this conversation is a waste of time. retracting my comment

I'm likewise aware that using literally to mean figuratively isn't particularly new, but the phrase's existence or age isn't the issue.

You're not wrong, but IIRC "only" has meant "one-like" since old english.

I like how you edited your comment which simply said what I wrote is "completely incoherent" :) So you figured out the meaning now, very good.

I respect your commitment to influence the evolution of the language :)

If the subject matter weren't somewhat baffling in the first place the edits and deletions certainly didn't help.

FYI for anyone reading this (not directed at you specifically): the 'delay' option in profile setting adds a delay before your comments appear publicly, giving you a buffer for edits and deletions before it goes out to the world.

Personally it helps a lot with ensuring I'm happy with the comments I make, and it helps avoid situations like this where multiple layers of retroactive changes make the conversation hard to follow.

You can't respond to fresh comments in a back-and-forth on HN, there's a delay of a few minutes before the reply button shows up when many comments are being posted in quick succession. (or maybe it has to do with depth? unsure)

Heh, I just write too much too readily about unimportant opinions, and a lot of people read sentences longer than a few words as incontrovertible proof of being triggered :D

Also it's difficult not to call out the hypocrisy of descriptivists simultaneously saying that basically anything goes, but my preferred use of language in particular is wrong and I need to listen to what they prescribe :P

It doesn't really bother me, I just think it's not fit for purpose the exact same way as could care less to communicate not caring.

BTW thanks for the hot tip regarding the posting delay feature! Lord knows I need it, nothing induces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier like hitting that reply button :"D