Call me prescriptive, but the all too common phrase "one of the only" offends both ear and logic. What does it mean to say that "the $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration?" If it's the "only" cancellation, say so. If it's "one of the few," or even, one of "very few," why then, let's just go ahead and say that. "One of the only" is an unpleasant and chilling redundancy — it means no more than "one of the one." What's wrong with the word "only" that it needs help? Isn't "only" only enough? Perhaps "only" is wearing out, and "onliest" — now confined to rural or comic speech — will someday replace it. Onliest has the appearance of a superlative, but, logically speaking, "only" can't have a superlative. But logic, as we know, doesn't always govern the path of language. Redundancies and illogicalities abound, and awkward formulations such as "one of the only" aren't all that very one-of-a-kind singly unique.
Leave a Reply