Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm a little confused by the phrase "one of the only" - as far as I can tell, it just means the same as "one of the" with the vague implication that the number of things in the set is relatively small.

For example, "Neil Armstrong is one of the only men to land on the moon." It sounds like he's one of the few men to do this, just without using the word "few". Because then it's obvious that you're using the vague word "few" and not saying what it means.

"He is the only man to do this" - that's clearly saying that only one person has ever done it.

"A, B and C are the only people to do this" - again, that's clear, there are only 3.

"A is one of only 10 people to do this" - clear. There are 10 in the set, and A is one of them.

"He is one of the only people to do this" - doesn't seem to say anything at all. He's not the only one, but there is no clue whether 3 people have done it or 3 million.

"He is one of the few people to do this" / "He is one of the people to do this" - not clear, but at least it's clear that it's not clear. If you see what I mean. It's not trying to sound like it's saying something when it's not.

Or does "one of the only" actually have some specific meaning?

share|improve this question
    
It means roughly the same as "one of the few". –  Hot Licks Apr 28 at 11:48

4 Answers 4

up vote 1 down vote accepted

In my experience it's a way of indicating how extremely rare the 'thing' is.

To use your example of "One of the only people to" ... vs "One of the few people to...". Both phrases indicate that more than one person did the 'thing' but that not many people did the 'thing'.

Using the former phrase is a way to add emphasis and an indication of the level of difficulty or challenge associated with the 'thing'. For example I would use the following in conversation:

"He is one of the only men to land on the moon" vs "He is one of the few people to orbit the earth"

Landing on the moon is much more rare, and difficult, than orbiting the earth. Of course, orbiting the earth is still rare, and difficult.

My opinion or interpretation - don't think you'll find a definitive answer.
Regards

share|improve this answer

There is denotation and connotation of words in English, and that fact can't be ignored for purposes of logic or argument. Only does not carry a vague implication of a small number. It carries a connotation of a small number, sometimes one alone; an only child, the only redhead, the one and only.

Only: "being the single one or the relatively few of the kind; having no sibling or no sibling of the same sex; single in superiority or distinction; unique; the best."

If it were a vaguely smaller number, then a sentence like this would make sense:

We started with 2,000 tickets, but we only sold 1,994.

Someone hearing that would think the speaker was very, very ungrateful for their very good fortune. It is much more appropriate to say

We started with 2,000 tickets, and we only have 6 left!

"He is one of the only people to do this" - doesn't seem to say anything at all. He's not the only one, but there is no clue whether 3 people have done it or 3 million.

You're right; there is no specific number which constitutes only. In this case, it carries the connotation of a relative few. If it is being used correctly, it does, indeed, mean a relatively few people. Though few, I agree, sounds good.

Thousands of people climb mountains every year, but only 350 or so people have climbed the Seven Summits (the highest mountains on each of the seven continents). Fewer still have climbed the Seven Second Summits (many are harder to climb that the highest). Therefore if someone said, he is one of the only people to have climbed the Seven Seconds", it means something.

The Milky Way Galaxy is enormous, but it contains only ~300,000,000,000 stars. 300 billion sounds like a lot. Seeing as there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe, it's safe to say only 300,000,000,000 stars. Because the Universe is estimated to have about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. If my math is correct, for every star in our galaxy, there are ~33,333,333,333,333 other stars. And only about 5000 of them are visible to the human eye.

share|improve this answer
    
You say "if someone said, he is one of the only people to have climbed the Seven Seconds, it means something." I disagree. Because I have no idea how many people have done this, and because you don't tell me, to me it means nothing apart from a vague implication, right? The only information I get is that he has climbed them, but not how significant this is. –  francis Apr 3 '14 at 13:57
1  
@francis - If I agreed with you, I wouldn't have posted a dissenting opinion, would I? A word has limitations. It also has connotations. It's up to you what you want to believe about them. ;) –  medica Apr 3 '14 at 19:53
1  
It isn't a vague implication. The phrasing is giving a specific connotation that the number is very low...the only thing it does not do is tell you the exact number. –  Oldcat Apr 4 '14 at 0:22
1  
Francis, you're directly contradicting yourself here. A vague implication is not nothing. ‘Only’ doesn't tell you any exact number, but it does tell you that the number is being implicitly compared to some other ‘majority’ number, which is much bigger. That's not telling you nothing; that's saying quite a lot for one little four-letter word, actually. –  Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 4 '14 at 6:03
1  
@francis - 5 miles into a 500 mile trip is not "almost there". 5 minutes into a 7 hour trip doesn't mean you will now soon arrive. You are not one of the only people who ride a bike. You are one of many who ride a bike. This is an English Language Usage site. People better than I at English have tole you what the answer is. Anyway, we do disagree, it appears. But I don't want you to leave feeling that we confirmed your bias. We have not. –  medica Apr 4 '14 at 18:35

Let's try this. The "only person". This has a clear meaning, singular individual> One of the "few". Implies a limited group. One of the "only". Leaves the reader dead in the water. It is a word used without any context, meaningless, and out of place. One of "only a few". "Only" here doesn't add any meaning to the phrase, just emphasises "a few". So I see "only" as a way of emphasising words which follow, and "a few" does this job much better, and in a much clearer way. Using "only" with nothing to follow the word, leaves the reader waiting for clarification. Just my impression. I must admit I hate "one of the only". This really makes me cringe, as there are much better options available to express the underlying meaning of the speaker.

share|improve this answer

"one of the only ..." means it's easy to make an exhaustive list of the ones with the attribute "..." and the one you're talking about is on that list.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.