It is still happening. The dreaded one of the only is being heard on radio and television, maybe right this minute. Duh-duh-duh-duh. I heard it again on the radio last week and was glad I didn't call in a pledge. I have even seen it in print. What is so bad about the phrase? It really doesn't mean anything. I shouldn't have to guess whether the speaker means the only, one of only a few, or one of the only two remaining restaurants in the city. You get the idea. Of course I would never use an unclear or confusing group of words such as one of the only.
Or would I? The previously mentioned offending phrase obviously makes no real sense and should therefore be illegal. But I'm sure I have used and heard equally vague terms such as one of the first or its fraternal twin, one of the last. These too should have qualifiers, such as one of the first three explorers or one of the last few rows in the theater.
It all goes back to Gramma's idea that accuracy breeds understanding and clarifies intention. A little time to think, to listen to yourself, or to re-read can be valuable for you and for your listeners or readers. I'm sure I am not one of the only people to think that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment