[Grammar] Watch his work in A and B

[Chiyokz]

I saw the sentence "watch his work in A and B". A/B was concrete movie title like "Titanic". In Japanese translated, it seems to mean " Watch his production (movie) such as A or B" I cannot understand whether the translation is right.
Please let me know on the structure/meaning of this sentence.

I am sorry I uploaded the same question yesterday, but it seems to have failed.

 

[susiedqq]

Watch his work in movie A and movie B =

Take note of his (acting, directing) in these movies.

 

[Chiyokz]

Are you saying that "A" and "B' are different movies, or, is "A and B" the name of one movie? Also, I don't understand your use of "concrete". My best guess is that you are being asked to see the work of a movie producer and that you can see what he has done in a movie(s).

Sorry for vaigue expression. The original one is: watching his work in "Memento" and "Innsomnia."
Here he is a director for film. Still translation into Japanese is the same: watching movies ( in the past) such as "Memento" and "Innsomnia."

If the translation is correct, "in" is functionally the same as "such as".???
Please teach me.

 

[5jj]

If the translation is correct, "in" is functionally the same as "such as".???

No, it isn't. 'such as' would still require 'in' in front of it.

Susiedqq (post #3) told you what the sentence meant. If you wished, you could add 'such as' - Watch his work in films such as "Memento" and "Innsomnia." You are then naming these two films as (good) examples of his work.

 

[Chiyokz]

Thank you for the reply. Because I thought the meaning based on translation in Japanese, I missed the difference of level of abstractiveness between "work" and movie titles.
I am now clear. Thank you again !

 

[Barb_D]

But semantically they are not the same meaning!

If I tell you to watch his work in A and B, I mean watch A and watch B, specifically.
Maybe A and B are the only two movies that I think he was in any good in.

If I tell you to watch his work in movies such as A and B, I mean watch what he does in general, and give you A and B as examples.

I don't like Jim Carey as an actor, but when I watch him in The Truman Show and The Majestic, I can appreciate that he's a good actor. Those are two of the only movies I think he's any good in. It's not the same as saying "watch him in movies, such as..." because if you include the host of other movies where I think he's a buffoon, you won't get the point I"m making.

 

[Raymott]

Those are two of the only movies I think he's any good in.

Hi Barb. This is off topic, but I've been confused by this phrase for ages.
(usually expressed as "one of the only". We don't hear it much in Australia.) What does it actually mean?
My guess is that it doesn't mean "Those are the only two movies ..." (or does it?); and it can't mean "There is a group of his only movies, and these are two of them"
Does it mean:
"There are very few movies I like him in, and these are two of them"?;
"I don't like him much, but I can think of two movies offhand that I do like him in"?;
"These are two of the few movies I like him in"?
Or a combination fo these?

Thanks.

 

[5jj]

Hi Barb. This is off topic, but I've been confused by this phrase for ages.

I am looking forward to Barb's response. I had not noticed the strangeness of the words before, but now that you have raised the point, Ray, they sound very strange indeed.

I think I'd say 'two of the few movies...', but I am sure that I have heard, without noticing, 'two of the only movies...'.

 

[SoothingDave]

It is an odd expression, isn't it?

If you say something is "only" you are stating a uniqueness. "This is the only plane to Brazil today."

By saying "one of the only" (or two!), you are refuting the uniqueness of the "only." I guess it really means "one of the few."

 

[5jj]

It is an odd expression, isn't it?

If you say something is "only" you are stating a uniqueness. "This is the only plane to Brazil today."

By saying "one of the only" (or two!), you are refuting the uniqueness of the "only." I guess it really means "one of the few."

I don't agree with you there. I think 'only' has more of an idea of there being no other. So, I can happily say, "There are only two planes to Brazil today", or even: The population of London used to be ten million; only eight million people live there today". I can also say, "He is one of only ten people in the world who still speak this language". What seems very strange is, "They are ten of the only people in the world who still speak this language".

It's the "of the only..." that causes the problem.

 

[SoothingDave]

Point taken. I think it's the definite article that makes the difference. "The only."

 

[Barb_D]

One of the only = one of the few that satisfy a certain condition.

There are sixty types of coffee on the market.
I like only four of them.
What I'm drinking now is one of the only types I like. = This is one of the four = This is one of the few that satisfy that condition.

He's made 25 movies. 22 of them are crap. Only 3 are any good. These are two of the only movies of his that I liked.


You're right - it's an odd combination, but it's just how we say it.