←back to thread

291 points mooreds | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.244s | source
Show context
pixelpoet ◴[] No.45291451[source]
> 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".

replies(9): >>45291462 #>>45291488 #>>45291513 #>>45291551 #>>45291558 #>>45291634 #>>45291684 #>>45291917 #>>45292615 #
QuercusMax ◴[] No.45291551[source]
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

replies(1): >>45291664 #
pixelpoet ◴[] No.45291664[source]
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

replies(2): >>45292596 #>>45292680 #
fckgw ◴[] No.45292680[source]
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.
replies(1): >>45292779 #
1. skylurk ◴[] No.45292779[source]
You're not wrong, but IIRC "only" has meant "one-like" since old english.