Astonishing Facts....

Astonishing Facts....

Author
Discussion

Ultra Sound Guy

28,616 posts

193 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
dudleybloke said:
They got eaten by the Ants.
Is that why there are no headache tablets in Australia, because the parrots ate 'em all.
This thread was bound to attract a cock or two!

GAjon

3,721 posts

212 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
The lack of bears bears being referred to are not the animal type but the celestial bears.

SCEtoAUX

4,119 posts

80 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
You can't buy a hammer in Greenwich Village after midnight.

Kermit power

28,634 posts

212 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
SCEtoAUX said:
You can't buy a hammer in Greenwich Village after midnight.
Prior to 1994, whilst you could happily trundle down to your friendly local newsagent and fill your boots with the porn mags of your choice on a Sunday, it was illegal to buy a bible!

In a similar vein, have you ever wondered why there are so many Chinese Fish & Chip shops? That's because it also used to be illegal for chippies to open on a Sunday, but Chinese takeaways were both allowed to open, and also to sell fish & chips!

Greg_D

6,542 posts

245 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
There are more humans alive on this planet right now than have ever lived and died in the entirety of human evolution combined.

Such is the speed of population growth.

johnymac

285 posts

170 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
Antony Moxey said:
Six Figs said:
gothatway said:
I've never been able to understand that construct. What on earth does it mean ?
I know what it means, what is wrong with the construct?

To help you, only is not a number, the phrase is used,, as it is possible other countries may eat cat meat but not as widely publicised.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/only

''adjective
5.
being the single one or the relatively few of the kind:
This is the only pencil I can find.''

Edited by Six Figs on Sunday 11th February 21:57


Edited by Six Figs on Sunday 11th February 22:00
Because it says "one of the only". That doesn't make sense. As has been said previously 'one of only a few' or 'one of only <insert number>' but not 'one of THE only'. It neither reads right or looks right.
You are correct. This type of phrasing is being used more regularly. However many times you see or hear it used ,it's still wrong. The most worrying thing though is the number of people who defend it's use!

PowerslideSWE

1,116 posts

137 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
Greg_D said:
There are more humans alive on this planet right now than have ever lived and died in the entirety of human evolution combined.

Such is the speed of population growth.
That can't be true, not even close.

The number of people who lived between 50,000 BC and AD 2011 has been guesstimated at 107,602,707,791 by demographer Carl Haub (see Haub’s article How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?

Kermit power

28,634 posts

212 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
johnymac said:
Antony Moxey said:
Six Figs said:
gothatway said:
I've never been able to understand that construct. What on earth does it mean ?
I know what it means, what is wrong with the construct?

To help you, only is not a number, the phrase is used,, as it is possible other countries may eat cat meat but not as widely publicised.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/only

''adjective
5.
being the single one or the relatively few of the kind:
This is the only pencil I can find.''

Edited by Six Figs on Sunday 11th February 21:57


Edited by Six Figs on Sunday 11th February 22:00
Because it says "one of the only". That doesn't make sense. As has been said previously 'one of only a few' or 'one of only <insert number>' but not 'one of THE only'. It neither reads right or looks right.
You are correct. This type of phrasing is being used more regularly. However many times you see or hear it used ,it's still wrong. The most worrying thing though is the number of people who defend it's use!
"Only" means either singular or one of a small number, so there's no reason why you can't have "one of only".

For example, if Fred was at a party with 300 people and absolutely none of them were still sober enough to drive, then you could say that "Fred was the only one at the party still sober enough to drive", yet if Bill and Sally were also still sober enough to drive, then "Fred was one of only three people at the party still sober enough to drive".

Both are perfectly normal and grammatical uses of the word "only".

johnymac

285 posts

170 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
Antony Moxey said:
Six Figs said:
gothatway said:
I've never been able to understand that construct. What on earth does it mean ?
I know what it means, what is wrong with the construct?

To help you, only is not a number, the phrase is used,, as it is possible other countries may eat cat meat but not as widely publicised.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/only

''adjective
5.
being the single one or the relatively few of the kind:
This is the only pencil I can find.''

Edited by Six Figs on Sunday 11th February 21:57


Edited by Six Figs on Sunday 11th February 22:00
Because it says "one of the only". That doesn't make sense. As has been said previously 'one of only a few' or 'one of only <insert number>' but not 'one of THE only'. It neither reads right or looks right.
You are correct. This type of phrasing is being used more regularly. However many times you see or hear it used ,it's still wrong. The most worrying thing though is the number of people who defend it's use!

eldar

21,614 posts

195 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct.

Jonboy_t

5,038 posts

182 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
johnymac said:
Antony Moxey said:
Six Figs said:
gothatway said:
I've never been able to understand that construct. What on earth does it mean ?
I know what it means, what is wrong with the construct?

To help you, only is not a number, the phrase is used,, as it is possible other countries may eat cat meat but not as widely publicised.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/only

''adjective
5.
being the single one or the relatively few of the kind:
This is the only pencil I can find.''

Edited by Six Figs on Sunday 11th February 21:57


Edited by Six Figs on Sunday 11th February 22:00
Because it says "one of the only". That doesn't make sense. As has been said previously 'one of only a few' or 'one of only <insert number>' but not 'one of THE only'. It neither reads right or looks right.
You are correct. This type of phrasing is being used more regularly. However many times you see or hear it used ,it's still wrong. The most worrying thing though is the number of people who defend it's use!
You are one of only a couple of people who give a flying ste.

I am one of the millions who understand what’s being said when it’s used, agree or otherwise and then get on my merry way.

dudleybloke

19,718 posts

185 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
eldar said:
Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct.
Quitters.

Antony Moxey

8,016 posts

218 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
Kermit power said:
johnymac said:
Antony Moxey said:
Six Figs said:
gothatway said:
I've never been able to understand that construct. What on earth does it mean ?
I know what it means, what is wrong with the construct?

To help you, only is not a number, the phrase is used,, as it is possible other countries may eat cat meat but not as widely publicised.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/only

''adjective
5.
being the single one or the relatively few of the kind:
This is the only pencil I can find.''

Edited by Six Figs on Sunday 11th February 21:57


Edited by Six Figs on Sunday 11th February 22:00
Because it says "one of the only". That doesn't make sense. As has been said previously 'one of only a few' or 'one of only <insert number>' but not 'one of THE only'. It neither reads right or looks right.
You are correct. This type of phrasing is being used more regularly. However many times you see or hear it used ,it's still wrong. The most worrying thing though is the number of people who defend it's use!
"Only" means either singular or one of a small number, so there's no reason why you can't have "one of only".

For example, if Fred was at a party with 300 people and absolutely none of them were still sober enough to drive, then you could say that "Fred was the only one at the party still sober enough to drive", yet if Bill and Sally were also still sober enough to drive, then "Fred was one of only three people at the party still sober enough to drive".

Both are perfectly normal and grammatical uses of the word "only".
But neither of your phrases use the same wording as the incorrect phrase. It says “one of the only”, not “the only one” or “one of only”. Try using your two phrases with “one of the only” in instead. They don’t work.

Wiccan of Darkness

1,838 posts

82 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
Shame the grammar police aren't experiencing cutbacks. Quit it please, and stop ruining what was an interesting thread.

Anyhoo....

Octopuses have blue blood.

An ostrich can run from London to Edinburgh - and back again - non stop. It won't get cramp, either.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
The plural of Octopus is actually Octopodes.

One for the sad sacks.

RATATTAK

10,593 posts

188 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
Six Figs said:
The plural of Octopus is actually Octopodes.

One for the sad sacks.
Only if you're Greek

Johnspex

4,332 posts

183 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
Six Figs said:
The plural of Octopus is actually Octopodes.

One for the sad sacks.
I don't think that's what Suzy Dent said the other day. Wasn't it something like octopiades?

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
RATATTAK said:
Only if you're Greek
No,,, In their original language the plurals of such words followed that language's rules. Octopus is a Greek word,, therefore follows Greek plurals, the same rules as Latin plurals.


m1dg3

128 posts

153 months

Monday 12th February 2018
quotequote all
Nanook said:
Wiccan of Darkness said:
Shame the grammar police aren't experiencing cutbacks. Quit it please, and stop ruining what was an interesting thread.

Anyhoo....

Octopuses have blue blood.

An ostrich can run from London to Edinburgh - and back again - non stop. It won't get cramp, either.
Had to look into the last one, apparently an Ostrich could run a marathon in 45 minutes!
My favourite ostrich fact is that its brain is smaller than its eyeball.

crofty1984

15,830 posts

203 months

Tuesday 13th February 2018
quotequote all
Johnny Cash's middle name is R.