to

[Taka]

Suppose this girl was the sole survivor of the fire. Would you interpret this sentence below as such?

She was the only one to survive the fire.

 

[Barb_D]

Yes. I would assume there were at least two other people, who both died in the fire. However, there could have been 200 others, not just two. But more than one other.

 

[Taka]

So the one with the to-infinitive means the same as this?

She was the only one who (had) survived the fire.

 

[Barb_D]

Yes, though I'd say stick with simple past, not past perfect.

He was the only one to solve the puzzle.
He was the only who who solved the puzzle. Same

But you can't say "He was the first to solve the puzzle" and make that "He was the first who solved the puzzle." It works with "the only one" but not "the first one."

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes. I would assume there were at least two other people, who both died in the fire. However, there could have been 200 others, not just two. But more than one other.

If only one other person was involved and that person died, how would you state the OP's sentence about the one person who died?

 

[Barb_D]

With only two people in total, "the only" seems wrong, survivor or victim.

 

[emsr2d2]

I used to live next door to a lovely couple, John and Sarah. One night, their boiler exploded and the house caught fire. Unfortunately, John was the only one to survive.

How would you have written it?

 

[Barb_D]

Perhaps "but only John survived"?

 

[emsr2d2]

Perhaps "but only John survived"?

Ah, I thought it was the use of the word "only" that you objected to. However, it appears to be "the only one" that you have a problem with. I see your point. I don't entirely agree with it (just for once) but I understand.

 

[5jj]

Ah, I thought it was the use of the word "only" that you objected to. However, it appears to be "the only one" that you have a problem with. I see your point. I don't entirely agree with it (just for once) but I understand.

I'm with you on this one. I have no particular objection to 'the only one' of two.

 

[Barb_D]

Fair enough. If I already knew there were two it would work for me. But if you just said "There was a terrible fire. Karen was the only one to survive" would you not expect more than one casualty?

 

[5jj]

Fair enough. If I already knew there were two it would work for me. But if you just said "There was a terrible fire. Karen was the only one to survive" would you not expect more than one casualty?

Yes, but as much because of the 'terrible fire', which suggests something large enough to kill a lot of people, as of the 'only one'.

I have to admit, however, that if the incident is put in a slightly different way, I approach your way of thinking:

There was a fire at 37 Postule Road last night, and one person died. (We have no idea how many people were in the house).
There was a fire at 37 Postule Road last night; one of the two residents died. (not 'only one')
There was a fire at 37 postule Road last night; only one of the residents survived. (There were more than two)

The more I think about this, the more I think that I am not making sense, even to myself. :shocked!:

 

[Taka]

Uh...ladies and gentlemen, you seem to be getting off the track a bit.

So let me confirm.

Would yo agree with Barb that 'She was the only one to survive the fire' is the same as 'She was the only one who survived the fire'?

 

[5jj]

Uh...ladies and gentlemen, you seem to be getting off the track a bit.

Would you agree with Barb that 'She was the only one to survive the fire' is the same as 'She was the only one who survived the fire'?

Us? Off the track? Never!

In answer to your irrelevant question that has interrupted an interesting conversation (;-)) - Yes.

 

[Barb_D]

Sorry.

 

[Taka]

And 'She was the first one to solve the puzzle' is not the same as 'She was the first one who solved the puzzle', right?

How come?

 

[Barb_D]

With "one" it works I think. Maybe.

But not "she was first who solved" even though you can say "she was first to solve"