The use of "only"
JUST AN H
beginning to wonder if the "stylebook" they apparently use omits the word
entirely, leaving reporters unfamiliar with the proper use of that word to fend
for themselves. I think a refresher course is in order.
When describing amounts, the word "only" follows the verb, and does not precede
it. Simple examples of the improper use of "only" are:
"I only had two eggs for breakfast." (Are eggs all I had for breakfast?)
"The building only has two floors." (Surely, the building has windows,
walls, and a roof, too!)
"She only planted petunias in her garden this year." (Is planting petunias
all she did in the garden this year? She must have done some weeding &
watering out in the garden, and probably worked, played and ate, too, this
year!)
"The zoo only has two elephants." (It must be a boring zoo. Surely, the
zoo has more than just elephants! It probably has a staff, gardens and
monkeys, too.)
The above sentences should be written (and spoken) thusly:
I ate only two eggs at breakfast.
The building has only two floors.
She planted only petunias in her garden this year.
The zoo has only two elephants.
J.
To allow for other activities, "only" should be placed after the verb
P&DSchultz
>
> I have seen so many improper uses of the word "only" in the newspapers that I'm
> beginning to wonder if the "stylebook" they apparently use omits the word
> entirely, leaving reporters unfamiliar with the proper use of that word to fend
> for themselves. I think a refresher course is in order.
>
> When describing amounts, the word "only" follows the verb, and does not precede
> it. Simple examples of the improper use of "only" are:
>
> "I only had two eggs for breakfast." (Are eggs all I had for breakfast?)
> "The building only has two floors." (Surely, the building has windows,
> walls, and a roof, too!)
>
> I ate only two eggs at breakfast.
But when someone says, "The building only has two floors," everyone
understands what the person means, and their is no actual ambiguity.
So, what would be the point of everyone remembering and employing some
rule that you made up?
//P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
> P Schultz wrote:
>
> >But when someone says, "The building only has two floors," everyone
> >understands what the person means, and their is no actual ambiguity.
> >So, what would be the point of everyone remembering and employing some
> >rule that you made up?
>
> Bad logic, PSchultz. That "everyone understands" what a person means when he
> or she says, for example, "I ain't readin' no more of this shit!" doesn't make
> such sloppy use of English any less an affront to the proper use of this
> language.
>
> As for this being a rule I "made up," well, you would do well to go back to
> school and brush up on your grammar. Were you to do so, you'd find that the
> rules governing the use of "only" have been around since long before you or I
> were born.
I have at least ten books on usage and writing at my office. Not one of
them prescribes a firm rule for the placement of "only." The most any
of them say is to make sure the placement of "only" does not mislead the
reader. Any idiomatic-sounding placement that does not mislead the
reader is considered acceptable.
Since I'm at home, I cannot quote a dozen different authorities, but
here are a couple --
AHD3, usage note to "only": "Though strict grammarians insist that the
rule for placement of 'only' should always be followed, there are
occasions when placement of 'only' earlier in the sentence seems much
more natural." [Guess the H is a strict grammarian]
Fowler 3 (Burchfield): First he quotes Fowler and Jesperson, who often
disagreed, and shows that both took a liberal approach to the placement
of "only." His conclusion: "It would be perverse to ignore the evidence
provided by so many of our best writers when they are prepared to allow
'only' to make an early entrance in a sentence and leave common sense to
work out the meaning."
Follow whatever rules you like, H (although it *would* be useful if you
could bring yourself to follow standard Usenet rules about quoting and
attribution), but don't think yourself superior to those of us (damned
near everyone, actually) who take a more flexible approach.
Bob Lieblich
JUST AN H
or she says, for example, "I ain't readin' no more of this shit!" doesn't make
such sloppy use of English any less an affront to the proper use of this
language.
As for this being a rule I "made up," well, you would do well to go back to
school and brush up on your grammar. Were you to do so, you'd find that the
rules governing the use of "only" have been around since long before you or I
were born.
J.
P.S. You might brush up on your spelling, too.
>But when someone says, "The building only has two floors," everyone
>understands what the person means, and their is no actual ambiguity.
>So, what would be the point of everyone remembering and employing some
>rule that you made up?
>//P. Schultz
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>JUST AN H wrote:
>>
>> I have seen so many improper uses of the word "only" in the newspapers that I'm
>> beginning to wonder if the "stylebook" they apparently use omits the word
>> entirely, leaving reporters unfamiliar with the proper use of that word to fend
>> for themselves. I think a refresher course is in order.
>>
>> When describing amounts, the word "only" follows the verb, and does not precede
>> it. Simple examples of the improper use of "only" are:
>>
>> "I only had two eggs for breakfast." (Are eggs all I had for breakfast?)
>> "The building only has two floors." (Surely, the building has windows,
>> walls, and a roof, too!)
>> ...
>> The above sentences should be written (and spoken) thusly:
>>
>> I ate only two eggs at breakfast.
>> The building has only two floors....
>
>But when someone says, "The building only has two floors," everyone
>understands what the person means, and their is no actual ambiguity.
>So, what would be the point of everyone remembering and employing some
>rule that you made up?
>//P. Schultz
Good logic is not a rule he simply made up. While there may be no
ambiguity to some, why not make statements that avoid the possibility?
In his example "I only ate two eggs at breakfast" it is quite unclear
whether that is all he ate, whereas "I ate only two eggs at breakfast"
is crystal clear.
Charles
Bill McCray
wrote:
>JUST AN H wrote:
>>
>> I have seen so many improper uses of the word "only" in the newspapers that I'm
>> beginning to wonder if the "stylebook" they apparently use omits the word
>> entirely, leaving reporters unfamiliar with the proper use of that word to fend
>> for themselves. I think a refresher course is in order.
>>
>> When describing amounts, the word "only" follows the verb, and does not precede
>> it. Simple examples of the improper use of "only" are:
>>
>> "I only had two eggs for breakfast." (Are eggs all I had for breakfast?)
>> "The building only has two floors." (Surely, the building has windows,
>> walls, and a roof, too!)
>> ...
>> The above sentences should be written (and spoken) thusly:
>>
>> I ate only two eggs at breakfast.
>> The building has only two floors....
>
>But when someone says, "The building only has two floors," everyone
>understands what the person means, and their is no actual ambiguity.
>So, what would be the point of everyone remembering and employing some
>rule that you made up?
>//P. Schultz
And since we know you meant "there" rather than "their", what's the
point in having both words?
Bill
P&DSchultz
Same as the reason for saying "The building only has two floors."
Custom.
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
> Good logic is not a rule he simply made up. ...
It is a bad mistake to expect logic in a natural language.
//P. Schulrz
janelaw
>
> JUST AN H wrote:
> >
> > I have seen so many improper uses of the word "only" in the newspapers that I'm
> > beginning to wonder if the "stylebook" they apparently use omits the word
> > entirely, leaving reporters unfamiliar with the proper use of that word to fend
> > for themselves. I think a refresher course is in order.
> >
> >
> But when someone says, "The building only has two floors," everyone
> understands what the person means, and their is no actual ambiguity.
> So, what would be the point of everyone remembering and employing some
> rule that you made up?
> //P. Schultz
P,
If the meaning were clear with either construction, then the
language could move from one to the other without loss of
anything but tradition. You have to admit, though, that there
is a problem with the two sentences you did not include in your
response. I cannot tell from reading them what meaning the
writer intends.
Consider, "She only planted petunias in her garden this year."
If general usage is to place the "only" wherever the author
likes, then this sentence could mean:
- She planted the petunias in her garden, then ignored them.
- Once she planted the petunias, she did nothing else in her
garden.
- She spent the entire year planting petunias in her garden.
- She planted nothing but petunias.
- This is the first year she planted petunias.
- She put petunias in the garden, but not the window boxes, this
year.
When I read a sentence like this, my mind automatically
processes "only" with the word following it. Since this meaning
seems unlikely, I try combining "only" with "planted petunias",
"in the garden," etc. In many cases, I could figure out the
intended meaning of the sentence from the context. However, by
the time I do, I'm pissed. I resent the writer for making me do
his/her work. If I have to waste much of my time figuring out
what writers did not spend their time making clear, then I just
won't buy their books, read their columns, use their products,
etc.
Even worse, I could easily walk away from the "petunia" sentence
thinking that the subject is the most dedicated petunia gardener
in the world, when in fact, she spent five minutes sticking a
six-pack from Von's in her garden.
Writer S
<snip snap snurr>
>
>If the meaning were clear with either construction, then the
>language could move from one to the other without loss of
>anything but tradition. You have to admit, though, that there
>is a problem with the two sentences you did not include in your
>response. I cannot tell from reading them what meaning the
>writer intends.
>
>Consider, "She only planted petunias in her garden this year."
>If general usage is to place the "only" wherever the author
>likes, then this sentence could mean:
>- She planted the petunias in her garden, then ignored them.
>- Once she planted the petunias, she did nothing else in her
>garden.
>- She spent the entire year planting petunias in her garden.
>- She planted nothing but petunias.
>- This is the first year she planted petunias.
>- She put petunias in the garden, but not the window boxes, this
>year.
>
You left one out.
"She, and ONLY she, planted petunias in her garden this year."
Thus revealing the problem those of us who understand the language,
and use it according to "correct usage," encounter on a daily basis.
I can say exactly what I mean, and be misunderstood because of "common
usage."
George Carlin, comedian and wordsmith extraordinaire, takes on "common
usage" in his book, "Brain Droppings." Read it. It's insighful and
incisive.
>When I read a sentence like this, my mind automatically
>processes "only" with the word following it. Since this meaning
>seems unlikely, I try combining "only" with "planted petunias",
>"in the garden," etc. In many cases, I could figure out the
>intended meaning of the sentence from the context. However, by
>the time I do, I'm pissed. I resent the writer for making me do
>his/her work. If I have to waste much of my time figuring out
>what writers did not spend their time making clear, then I just
>won't buy their books, read their columns, use their products,
>etc.
>
You mispronounced the entire paragraph. It's pronounced, "I vote with
my wallet." ;-)
>Even worse, I could easily walk away from the "petunia" sentence
>thinking that the subject is the most dedicated petunia gardener
>in the world, when in fact, she spent five minutes sticking a
>six-pack from Von's in her garden.
At which point, why do you care whether she planted a six-pack from
Von's or a six-pack from Budwiser? ;-)
JUST AN H
Your message about the petunias has got to be the most humorous post I've
read in a long time. I started laughing when I got to your interpretations,
and am still laughing so hard that I can barely type.
>Consider, "She only planted petunias in her garden this year."
>If general usage is to place the "only" wherever the author
>likes, then this sentence could mean:
>- She planted the petunias in her garden, then ignored them.
>- Once she planted the petunias, she did nothing else in her
>garden.
>- She spent the entire year planting petunias in her garden.
>- She planted nothing but petunias.
>- This is the first year she planted petunias.
>- She put petunias in the garden, but not the window boxes, this
>year.
>
>When I read a sentence like this, my mind automatically
>processes "only" with the word following it. Since this meaning
>seems unlikely, I try combining "only" with "planted petunias",
>"in the garden," etc. In many cases, I could figure out the
>intended meaning of the sentence from the context. However, by
>the time I do, I'm pissed. I resent the writer for making me do
>his/her work. If I have to waste much of my time figuring out
>what writers did not spend their time making clear, then I just
>won't buy their books, read their columns, use their products,
>etc.
>
>Even worse, I could easily walk away from the "petunia" sentence
>thinking that the subject is the most dedicated petunia gardener
>in the world, when in fact, she spent five minutes sticking a
>six-pack from Von's in her garden.
></PRE></HTML>
Bill McCray
>processes "only" with the word following it. Since this meaning
>seems unlikely, I try combining "only" with "planted petunias",
>"in the garden," etc. In many cases, I could figure out the
>intended meaning of the sentence from the context. However, by
>the time I do, I'm pissed. I resent the writer for making me do
>his/her work.
Hear, hear!
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
Bill McCray
>Thus revealing the problem those of us who understand the language,
>and use it according to "correct usage," encounter on a daily basis.
>I can say exactly what I mean, and be misunderstood because of "common
>usage."
>
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY