2

For example, someone might say "That happens to me every single time I go there," when they could say "That happens to me every time I go there." Is it just a way of emphasizing the word "every"?

When spoken with anger or frustration, the first syllables are emphasized. It can be spoken as "ev'ery sing'le time" in a syncopated rhythm, like pounding a table with a fist.

But does the word "single" carry any extra meaning, or is it just a way of underlining "every" (and "single" is redundant)?

Edit: The same question goes for "every last", even though it isn't as rhythmic. Thanks to V.V. for finding this similar idiom.

Improve this question
2
  • Just emphasis, as though the speaker had counted each time and is recounting them with every (single?) blow of his fist on the table. Kinda like "each and every time."
    – deadrat
    Oct 20, 2015 at 0:17
  • If you're a writer and paid by the word, and each word is one dollar, then the difference would be one dollar. Otherwise, just a little extra emphasis, completely useless and rather in bad taste.
    – Ricky
    Oct 20, 2015 at 0:35

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

"Every single"means ' everyone without exception ' Oxford Guide to English Grammar J.Eastwood.Every single child was given a medal.

Improve this answer
3
  • +1 for the reference, but Merriam-Webster gives the same definition for the word "every": being each individual or part of a group without exception. So isn't the word "single" redundant?
    – Brent Washburne
    Oct 21, 2015 at 15:52
  • 1
    Dictionary of American Idioms.Every single(last) used for emphasis.
    – V.V.
    Oct 21, 2015 at 19:32
  • I am not quite sure what your meaning of "redundant " includes.I wouldn't use the word because though there seems to be no additional meaning an additional usage is obvious.
    – V.V.
    Oct 22, 2015 at 5:03
0

Since 'every' is a singular quantifier, 'single' is redundant. Redundant words are used for emphasis. 'Every', 'all', 'any', and sometimes 'each' are universal quantifiers. They specify all members of a set. 'No' is also universal because it specifies all members of the set formed by the inverse of a certain set. The following are equivalent: All Xs are Y. {ex: All cats are mammals.} Any X is Y. Each X is Y. {assuming no subset of Xs was recently mentioned} Every X is Y. No X is not Y. Redundant combinations, such as 'each and every single ...' merely emphasize that the reference is to all members.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Any source or reference for your answer?
    – Brent Washburne
    Oct 21, 2015 at 21:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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