|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 500
addict
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 500 |
Here's what I see as the difference:
"Only three domestic animals are not mentioned in the Bible" give me concrete, clear information. (It may be inaccurate, but I know what it means.)
"One of the only domestic animals not mentioned in the Bible" implies that there ARE other domestic animals not mentioned in the Bible. (As Bingley has indicated, this is indeed true.) Why not say "One of only seven domestic animals not.." or "one of only a few domestic animals not..." or even "the only one of our Western European-centric idea of domestic animals not.....", any one of which would be clearer. The "only" is unnecessary and tends towards obfuscation and bewilderment, which I eschew.
Of course, this is my own opinion, which everyone else is free to ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
>>The "only" is unnecessary<<
Without it you could think there was a different meaning, "THREE domestic animals aren't mentioned in the Bible!!!" like the writer of the Bible should be left back a grade or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
And if you allow "only" to be used with more than one you can emphasize the onliness of one by saying something like, "the cat is the onliest domestic animal not mentioned in the Bible."
If that were the case, which parboly it ain't.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,809
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
465
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|
|
