# ones?



## jorge_val_ribera

<<Mod Note:
This thread contains the October 2005 discussion and the October 2006 discussion about this topic.
Panj>>

Hello!

How are you doing? I'm here to fill in a gap in my English education  .
Well, I've never really been taught how to use the word "ones", so I always hesitate when I have to use it. I mean, I only look at it as the plural form of "one" and I don't know if that could be wrong. For example, are these sentences right?

_I baked only one cake. Lucy baked the other ones._

_Computers used to be very slow, but the new ones are faster than ever imagined._

_These books are famous in England, but those ones are not._


Thanks a lot in advance! Bye!


----------



## elroy

jorge_val_ribera said:
			
		

> Hello!
> 
> How are you doing? I'm here to fill in a gap in my English education  .
> Well, I've never really been taught how to use the word "ones", so I always hesitate when I have to use it. I mean, I only look at it as the plural form of "one" and I don't know if that could be wrong. For example, are these sentences right?
> 
> _I baked only one cake. Lucy baked the other ones._
> 
> _Computers used to be very slow, but the new ones are faster than ever imagined._
> 
> _These books are famous in England, but those ones are not._
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance! Bye!


 
Sentences 1 and 2 are perfect.
In sentence 3, "ones" may not be incorrect, but it's redundant.  I would say the sentence without it. 

Intriguing question!


----------



## panjandrum

Intriguing indeed!
Yet another example of a question that gets right underneath the guard of those of us who have been using the language since birth.

I don't have any words of wisdom - sometimes it feels right to use *ones *sometimes it doesn't.
For fun, I've taken the original sentences and written in red the way I'd say them and in blue a similar sentence that comfortably (for me) uses *ones*.

_I baked only one cake. Lucy baked the other *ones*._
_I baked one cake. Lucy baked the rest._
_I baked the red cakes. Lucy baked the blue *ones*._

_Computers used to be very slow, but the new *ones* are faster than ever imagined.
That's fine as it is._

_These books are famous in England, but those *ones* are not._
_These books are famous in England, but those are not. (as Elroy suggests)_
_Red books go on the top shelf, blue *ones* on the middle shelf, and green *ones* at the bottom._

I can't find any rule or pattern to the way I would use *ones*


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Sentences 1 and 2 are perfect.
> In sentence 3, "ones" may not be incorrect, but it's redundant. I would say the sentence without it.
> 
> Intriguing question!


 
I agree with you, but must add that I would naturally add the "ones" in sentence 3 - although it is redundant without it the sentence sounds too formal to me.


----------



## SweetMommaSue

jorge_val_ribera said:
			
		

> Hello!
> How are you doing? I'm here to fill in a gap in my English education  .
> Well, I've never really been taught how to use the word "ones", so I always hesitate when I have to use it. I mean, I only look at it as the plural form of "one" and I don't know if that could be wrong. For example, are these sentences right?
> 
> _I baked only one cake. Lucy baked the other ones._
> _Computers used to be very slow, but the new ones are faster than ever imagined._
> _These books are famous in England, but those ones are not._
> Thanks a lot in advance! Bye!



The first two sentences are just fine , and in my neck of the woods (where I live) we all say the third sentence with the "ones".  In school, I learned that both forms (with and without the "ones") are correct, though I do not recall the reason why.

Smiles,
SMS


----------



## cheshire

(1) I understand around half of our biggest clients have chief security officers. I'll bet that the others are clamoring for *them* now as well.

(2) the others are clamoring for *ones* as well.​I know them in (1)and "ones" in (2) have different meanings. "ones" in (2) means "any security officer." If that is what I want to express, is (2)correct as it is?


----------



## Gianna_7

cheshire said:


> (1) I understand around half of our biggest clients have chief security officers. I'll bet that the others are clamoring for *them* now as well.
> 
> (2) the others are clamoring for ones as well.​I know them in (1)and "ones" in (2) have different meanings. "ones" in (2) means "any security officer." If that is what I want to express, is (2)correct as it is?



I would use "them"....if you're looking for a different word you could also use "some" but it is not as clear as "them."


----------



## .   1

Gianna_7 said:


> I would use "them"....if you're looking for a different word you could also use "some" but it is not as clear as "them."


I agree.

.,,


----------



## cheshire

Thanks, my heart's dearest friends!

Would you be so kind as to explain to me why "ones" doesn't work in the sentence?


----------



## Gianna_7

I don't believe _ones_ is a word.  _One_, on the other hand, is a word and I just looked up its definition. _ Oneself_ is a word as well.  I have heard children say, "I want those ones"  when referring to a plural object but I don't believe that is correct English. 

I'm guessing again that because the nature of "one" is singular, adding the "-s" confuses the whole meaning....


----------



## cheshire

Is "those ones" wrong? Lightning weather!


----------



## Gianna_7

Yes, it is wrong.  You will not be able to find a "plural" listing for "one" in the online dictionaries.  What did you mean by lightning weather?


----------



## cheshire

It's to show how I was surprised. (Donnerswetter)


----------



## Gianna_7

Very funny.  I actually am experiencing a lightning rainstorm at this moment!  I have never heard "lightning weather" as an expression before.


----------



## duckie

The plural of one is typically two 

btw - Donnerwetter = thunder weather


----------



## .   1

duckie said:


> The plural of one is typically two
> 
> btw - Donnerwetter = thunder weather


Or even some.

.,,


----------



## duckie

I know, it was just a nice way to remember that 'one' becomes 'two' in plural - just like the numbers there is no 'ones' number 

edit - ummm.. unless we're talking about several of the figure ones, I guess.. the nines and the sevens and the ones..


----------



## .   1

duckie said:


> I know, it was just a nice way to remember that 'one' becomes 'two' in plural - just like the numbers there is no 'ones' number


Quite true and well put.
I enjoy your positive humour in a strangely funny thread.
I do not think that individual numbers have plurals unless you are speaking only of numbers.

.,,


----------



## duckie

No? You can't say I drew two eights (8s) in the sand? I'm a little bleary, it just sounded sorta right..

edit - thinking about it _is_ something that can be done in other Germanic languages.


----------



## .   1

duckie said:


> No? You can't say I drew two eights (8s) in the sand? I'm a little bleary, it just sounded sorta right..
> 
> edit - thinking about it _is_ something that can be done in other Germanic languages.


Yes you can say that you drew two eights in the sand but you are only referring to numbers.
It would sound strange to order two eights milk bottles rather than sixteen milk bottles.

.,,


----------



## gaer

Results 1 - 10 of about 17,800 for "Those are the ones I want". (0.55 seconds) 

I am making no statement about the correctness of this usage, but it's something I have definitely said.

If I am looking at a group of items right next to another group of items and pointing, if there were many and I did not want to mention a number, I would say:

"Oh, those are the ones I like best. They're perfect. How much are they?"

Would no one else in this group say that?  

It may not be correct in formal language, but it certainly seems to me that "ones" is used informally and not at all infrequently. No alarm bells go off in my mind when I hear such a phrase.

Gaer


----------



## .   1

Yes I agree with you but this is a case of verbal language use overlapping into the written medium.
For the sentence to make sense there would be a requirement for pointing or some other form of identification of the group of items you wanted.
Written language does not have this luxury so clarity of meaning is required.
This could be achieved with a small descriptive such as;
I want the group with the small doll in it.
or
I want the group immediately to the left of the one with the small doll in it.

.,,


----------



## gaer

. said:


> Yes I agree with you but this is a case of verbal language use overlapping into the written medium.
> For the sentence to make sense there would be a requirement for pointing or some other form of identification of the group of items you wanted.
> Written language does not have this luxury so clarity of meaning is required.
> This could be achieved with a small descriptive such as;
> I want the group with the small doll in it.
> or
> I want the group immediately to the left of the one with the small doll in it.
> 
> .,,


To be honest, I have never thought about "ones" before. I think you are right. If "ones" appears in writing, it is in a completely conversational style.

In addition, it seems to be linked to "the". "The ones". This sentence does not seem to work for me:

"I'll bet that the others are clamoring for *ones* as well."

But very informally? There I am not sure. 

There is one thing I am sure about: if someone recorded my conversations without my being aware of it, I would be shocked at things I say. It's much like being caught on camera, unaware. The result is always a shock.


----------



## .   1

gaer said:


> There is one thing I am sure about: if someone recorded my conversations without my being aware of it, I would be shocked at things I say. It's much like being caught on camera, unaware. The result is always a shock.


This is an advantage of writing.
I can always go back and rewrite my sentences.
I am far more logical on paper than I am verbally.

.,,


----------



## gaer

. said:


> This is an advantage of writing.
> I can always go back and rewrite my sentences.
> I am far more logical on paper than I am verbally.
> 
> .,,


Written English and spoken English are very different, and it is for this reason that I think we have to be very careful how we answer questions in this forum.


----------



## cheshire

But "them" that our company employs as security officers and "them" that other companies are clamoring for are different persons. Is it still OK to use "them" there?


----------



## panjandrum

I wouldn't use ones in the sentence about security officers, but it appears quite often.
Which colour would you like?
I'd like the red one or the yellow one.
I can't eat the green ones.

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts; big ones, small ones, some as big as your head.


Sentence (2) would be OK as:
(2) each of the others is clamoring for *one* as well.
(apart from the AE spelling of clamouring, 
and the use of as well rather than too 
- though clamouring for one too is just too comical).


----------



## KatrinaIan

Hello to all!
There is one fact I can't just neglect -- there is a post that "one" is not a word and the plural of one is two.
May I share some of my experience?
A: I have several pencils which are red, blue and gree.
B: May I have *the red ones*, please?
I was taught that stylistically, when one wants to avoid repetition, "one/ones" come in handy.
Does anyone agree that "one" can have a plural when it is used to substitute a noun?
Katrina


----------



## gaer

KatrinaIan said:


> Hello to all!
> There is one fact I can't just neglect -- there is a post that "one" is not a word and the plural of one is two.
> May I share some of my experience?
> A: I have several pencils which are red, blue and gree.
> B: May I have *the red ones*, please?
> I was taught that stylistically, when one wants to avoid repetition, "one/ones" come in handy.
> Does anyone agree that "one" can have a plural when it is used to substitute a noun?
> Katrina


I can't agree or disagree about what is "allowed" or what is "correct". As I said last night, I never thought about this before.

You "B" sentence is spoken. Again, the rules about what is "proper" may be different regarding what is acceptable or not when comparing writing and speech.

I would say "B". Without any doubt. In addition, Panjy brought up a good point: "big ones, small ones", etc.

To say that "ones" is not a word or that it is incorrect in all cases in writing seems to me to be a very close-minded statement, and it may not be right.

Gaer


----------



## duckie

Hey, I'm used to being wrong 

If I was the one being referred to I didn't say that there's no 'ones' word, I said there's no 'ones' number.

I do think that the question being asked here has to do with 'correct', written English, and I don't think 'I can't eat the green ones' would be seen as correct. Commonly used and well understood, though.

Personally I don't give a hoot about what's 'correct', but it can be nice to know all the same.. sometimes. Then again, sometimes it's best not to.


----------



## maxiogee

cheshire said:


> (1) I understand around half of our biggest clients have chief security officers. I'll bet that the others are clamoring for *them* now as well.
> 
> (2) the others are clamoring for *ones* as well.​I know them in (1)and "ones" in (2) have different meanings. "ones" in (2) means "any security officer." If that is what I want to express, is (2)correct as it is?



I would say that not only is it right, it is preferable to (1). I say this because it could be implied that what the 'others' are clamouring for is the actual people represented by "them" in (1). Imagine the sentence with "retired police officers" in place of "chief security officers" and my meaning becomes more obvious.

My only quibble might be with using "ones" as a word for the singular position which any client would have available. I'm unsure about it but would understand exactly what was meant were someone to say

I understand that around half of our biggest clients have chief security officers. I'll bet that the others are clamoring for one now as well.


----------



## JamesM

"The green ones" seems fine to me.  "Those are tomatoes, dear -- don't eat the green ones."


----------



## duckie

maxiogee - yes, but 'one' is the singular, in plural it would be 'some', wouldn't it?

JamesM - I find it amusing that I'm being the party _defending_ the anal retentive, but although we both agree that 'don't eat the green ones' is perfectly normal spoken English, do you think that it's also grammatically correct written English?


----------



## JamesM

duckie said:


> maxiogee - yes, but 'one' is the singular, in plural it would be 'some', wouldn't it?
> 
> JamesM - I find it amusing that I'm being the party _defending_ the anal retentive, but although we both agree that 'don't eat the green ones' is perfectly normal spoken English, do you think that it's also grammatically correct written English?


 
I do. I can't see what the objection would be. Do you know of a specific objection to "ones" in written English?  I know I've read it in many novels over the years, although that doesn't make it correct.


----------



## gaer

I'm one of the _*ones*_ who is very confused about whether or not "ones" is "grammatical".


----------



## maxiogee

duckie said:


> maxiogee - yes, but 'one' is the singular, in plural it would be 'some', wouldn't it?



My quibble was based on what a listener would understand on hearing "ones". Many people would not know whether the speaker knew they should use 'some'.


----------



## JamesM

Here are a few examples from books gleaned using Google:

From Visual Perception: Physiology, Pyschology and Ecology by Bruce, Green and Goergeson

"Similarly, if a region is composed mostly of red and yellow squares (with a few blue and green ones) and the adjacent area is mostly green and blue..."

From The Magician's Nephew by C.S. Lewis

“I'm afraid I can't give the green ones away. But I'd be delighted to give you any of the yellow ones: with my love."

I think "ones" is perfectly fine when distinguishing sub-groups of a larger group.  

When scanning Google, I also saw titles such as, "The Young Ones",  "The Bold Ones", etc.   Maybe it seems a little odd to read for some, but I don't see any grammatical error in it.


----------



## gaer

JamesM said:


> Here are a few examples from books gleaned using Google:


You can't count this one for a correct written form:

_From The Magician's Nephew by C.S. Lewis_

_“I'm afraid I can't give the green ones away. But I'd be delighted to give you any of the yellow ones: with my love."_

This is a quote. Someone is speaking. Dialogue reflects conversational, not written English.

Your other example is a better example of written English. 


> I think "ones" is perfectly fine when distinguishing sub-groups of a larger group.


I do too!


> When scanning Google, I also saw titles such as, "The Young Ones", "The Bold Ones", etc. Maybe it seems a little odd to read for some, but I don't see any grammatical error in it.


I could not agree with you more, but as I said earlier in this thread, I have never in my life considered the use of "ones". So I'm really participating in this discussion because of curiosity.


----------



## duckie

Teehee!

Either way, right or wrong, I still wouldn't use 'ones' in a formal text.. and for everything else I make up my own rules as I go along anyway 

Now, I do believe it's time for..


----------



## Giordano Bruno

My opinion is that "ones" is perfectly correct.  In French you would say, "Je préfère le rouge", but in English that would become, I prefer the red one.  To translate "Je préfère les rouges" What can you say other than "I prefer the red ones".  I have never heard anyone challenge "ones" before.


----------



## KatrinaIan

duckie said:


> Teehee!
> 
> Either way, right or wrong, I still wouldn't use 'ones' in a formal text.. and for everything else I make up my own rules as I go along anyway
> 
> Now, I do believe it's time for..


 


_*Then why even bother to ask???*_


----------



## Tennessee

If I am using a vending machine, I might well ask a friend if he or she has any "ones" to refer to one dollar bills. Yes, I can call them "singles," but "ones" does not sound at all incorrect to me in the sentence "I have two tens and five ones."

Cheers,


----------



## duckie

KatrinaIan said:


> _*Then why even bother to ask???*_



I didn't start this thread, just in case you didn't realize.. as for asking questions; I always ponder and ask questions simply because I'm interested. I'm probably not going to do deep space research either, but that doesn't keep me from pondering and asking questions about it.


----------



## Gianna_7

Gianna_7 said:


> Yes, it is wrong.  You will not be able to find a "plural" listing for "one" in the online dictionaries.
> 
> I clearly overlooked the multiple functions of the word "ones" in the English language.  I am confused and also intrigued by the level of discussion inspired by this word.
> 
> Though I certainly will not call it "wrong" and may never call anything "wrong" again, whether or not it is in the dictionary, I do believe there are examples where the use of "ones" is redundant. Stylistically, I believe there are some examples that sound better than others.
> 
> Here is a good example of redundancy given by an English prof.http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/english/2006/05/these_ones_thos.html


----------



## cheshire

Tennessee said:


> If I am using a vending machine, I might well ask a friend if he or she has any "ones" to refer to one dollar bills. Yes, I can call them "singles," but "ones" does not sound at all incorrect to me in the sentence "I have two tens and five ones."
> 
> Cheers,


Can we also say "I have one one"? (meaning "one one-dollar note")



gaer said:


> I'm one of the _*ones*_ who is very confused about whether or not "ones" is "grammatical".


Is it OK to use in informal speech? Is it OK only when "ones" refers to inanimates?


----------



## cheshire

Gianna, I read though your link. To him, "those ones" sounds wrong. But some on this forum said it sound*ed* OK to *their* ears. [some on this forum said it sound*s *OK to *his* ear.(which is correct?)]

"those ones" should be "those"


----------



## gaer

cheshire said:


> Is it OK to use in informal speech? Is it OK only when "ones" refers to inanimates?


In my opinion many people have given examples using "ones" that sound fine to me. Most people seem to be wary about using it in formal writing or speech.

I can't answer your question. I don't speak formally, and I can't think of a situation in which I would use "ones" in something written in a formal situation, which is something I almost never do. 

Gaer


----------



## Lucretia

Sure it is correct. Only *these ones, those ones* is considered ungrammatical by most grammarians. Yet there are quite a few people who won't accept the lable.


----------



## JamesM

cheshire said:


> Can we also say "I have one one"? (meaning "one one-dollar note")
> 
> 
> Is it OK to use in informal speech? Is it OK only when "ones" refers to inanimates?


 
I think most people I know would say, "I only have a dollar", "I only have a single", or "I only have a one-dollar bill". "I have one one" sounds a little odd to me.

Regarding only inaminate objects being "ones", I can think of a way it is used in everyday speech referring to people:

"Everyone else makes a mess, and we are the ones who have to clean it up. It's not fair."

"We are the ones who will have to do it, because we are the ones who care."

From an article on overachievers:

"They are the ones that whip out a calculator after getting a test back to calculate just how their GPA has changed since the last test. "

(Just for the record, although I think "ones" is perfectly acceptable in spoken and written English, I think "these ones" and "those ones" are redundant phrases and wouldn't use them or recommend using them.)


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Lucretia said:


> Sure it is correct. Only *these ones, those ones* is considered ungrammatical by most grammarians.



Grammarians make up their own rules. No linguist would dispute that 'these ones' and 'those ones' are standard colloquial alternatives for 'these' and 'those' (used as pronouns).


----------



## duckie

One-one and two-two were racehorses. When one-one won one race two-two won one too.


----------



## gaer

JamesM said:


> I think most people I know would say, "I only have a dollar", "I only have a single", or "I only have a one-dollar bill". "I have one one" sounds a little odd to me.
> 
> Regarding only inaminate objects being "ones", I can think of a way it is used in everyday speech referring to people:
> 
> "Everyone else makes a mess, and we are the ones who have to clean it up. It's not fair."
> 
> "We are the ones who will have to do it, because we are the ones who care."


Good examples!


> From an article on overachievers:
> 
> "They are the ones that whip out a calculator after getting a test back to calculate just how their GPA has changed since the last test. "


"They are the ones *who* whip out a calculator after getting a test back to calculate just how their GPA has changed since the last test."

The "that" is not going to be accepted in formal writing. 


> (Just for the record, although I think "ones" is perfectly acceptable in spoken and written English, I think "these ones" and "those ones" are redundant phrases and wouldn't use them or recommend using them.)


I agree with you. Little by little people are finding phrases that show the legitimate use of "ones". It's strange that it is not mentioned anywhere as a grammatical oddity or potential problem.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

gaer said:


> I agree with you. Little by little people are finding phrases that show the legitimate use of "ones".



ALL uses of 'ones' by native speakers are legitimate -- by definition.


----------



## gaer

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> ALL uses of 'ones' by native speakers are legitimate -- by definition.


I can't believe I wrote "legitimate". That was really stupid.

About grammarians—yes, they make the rules—but they have tremendous power, and when students are in their power (think about high school and college), they have to follow rules of various grammars and style sheets. They have no choice.

Many people come here to get help passing tests, and some have no choice. That's why even the most liberal "descriptivists" try to make it plain when they are advocating any usage that may receive a poor grade. 

Gaer


----------



## maxiogee

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> ALL uses of 'ones' by native speakers are legitimate -- by definition.



I disagree, anti, but ones at liberty to dispute my reasoning if ones so inclined.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

maxiogee said:


> I disagree, anti, but ones at liberty to dispute my reasoning if ones so inclined.



I knew I should've added a "trivial/smartarse uses excepted" clause


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

gaer said:


> I can't believe I wrote "legitimate". That was really stupid.



Everyone gets caught out using the wrong word eventually 



gaer said:


> About grammarians—yes, they make the rules—but they have tremendous power, and when students are in their power (think about high school and college), they have to follow rules of various grammars and style sheets. They have no choice.




What, you've never seen Lindsay Anderson's 1968 film "If..."??!




gaer said:


> Many people come here to get help passing tests, and some have no choice. That's why even the most liberal "descriptivists" try to make it plain when they are advocating any usage that may receive a poor grade.
> Gaer



Point taken 
Now I'm a liberal :-(


----------

