{"id":17456,"date":"2018-05-23T14:53:34","date_gmt":"2018-05-23T21:53:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/?p=17456"},"modified":"2018-05-23T14:53:34","modified_gmt":"2018-05-23T21:53:34","slug":"one-is-not-like-single","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/2018\/05\/23\/one-is-not-like-single\/","title":{"rendered":"One is not like Single"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n<p>Time for another random observation about the English language: the difference between <i>one-handed<\/i> and <i>single-handed<\/i>. I noticed this when I was looking at the kind of play (such as <cite>Educating Rita<\/cite> or <cite>Red<\/cite> or <cite>Talley&#8217;s Folly<\/cite>) which has only two characters (or sometimes two actors playing more than two characters) (or, I suppose, fewer) and which is known among theater folk as a <i>two-hander<\/i>. This despite having (most often) four actual hands divided more or less evenly among the cast. I assume that the metaphor is drawn from card games. A play with three actors is sometimes called a <i>three-hander<\/i>, and a play with one actor is called a <I>monodrama<\/i>.\r\n<p>But I did recently see such a play referred to as a <i>single-hander<\/i> and while I deprecate such a usage, it is true that a monodrama requires the actor to present the performance, well, single-handedly. But not one-handed.\r\n<p>To do something <i>one-handed<\/i> or (<I>with one hand<\/i>) implies, I think, either that the thing is easy or that you are peculiarly skilled at it. At least, it implies that the person is not putting forth full effort. <I>I put it together with one hand<\/i>, he says with an insouciant grin, and she is ever so impressed, she is.\r\n<p>But to do something <i>single-handed<\/i> implies a tremendous effort. <I>Did you put it together single-handed<\/i> she asked shyly, and he smiled quietly to himself.\r\n<p>I had never noticed it before, but I think it&#8217;s fair to say that <I>single-handed<\/I> and <i>one-handed<\/i> are, if not technically antonyms, at least pretty close to having the opposite meaning in idiomatic use.\r\n<p>Thanks,<br>-Ed.\r\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Give these idioms a big hand!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-idioms"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17456"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17456\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17457,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17456\/revisions\/17457"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/words\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}