This short paper is a sequel to Kurata (2012), which focuses primarily on scrutinizing what kinds of verb are most likely to occur in what Levin and Rapoport (1988) call the "a hole" construction. Kurata (2012) also attempts to develop a template for this enigmatic construction. By reviewing a few prior relevant surveys and reexamining the 70 movie data gleaned for the above-mentioned 2012 research and a couple of additional examples, this follow-up paper brings to light a few unique behaviors of the "a hole" construction. It also compares the "a hole" construction with the "one's way" construction, both of which are considered to be constructional idioms. This academic work then puts forward a few linguistic similarities and differences found between the two seemingly kindred linguistic phenomena, and moves on to question whether we may safely regard the "a hole" construction as a bona fide constructional idiom.
