Placement of adverbs - "only" and others

[Stephen Tashi]

A situation I often debate is where to place adverbs in a sentence, especially the adverb "only". Should I write "He only found it once" ? - or "He found it only once". I need some sort of rule to go by - to comfort me when I obey it and give me glee when I'm naughty and ignore it. (I don't need rule to make a binding decision, just a rule that will make the decision process more interesting).

Perhaps a good rule is to write in minimalist way and not use adverbs, but sometimes they cannot be avoided. (Or should I say "but they sometimes cannot be avoided"?)

 

[Drakkith]

I wish I had some hard rules for you, but I don't think I do. I think the placement decides what you want the emphasis on and how strong that emphasis is. Saying, "He only found it once" is, to me, 'weaker' than saying, "He found it only once". Putting "only" right in front of "once" emphasizes 'once' a great deal, whereas leaving it in front of "found" is more 'standard'. I guess you could say that "once" and "only" emphasize each other.

I'm not sure that same rule applies to all adverbs though. Unfortunately a lot of writing and grammar comes down to just 'having the ear' for it if that makes sense.

 

[phinds]

I agree w/ Drakkith. There are no hard and fast rules or even any standard. It is purely a function of what you want to emphasize and also, unfortunately, different people will have a different "ear" for what sounds best so whatEVER way you choose there will likely always be some who think the other way would have been better.

Just as an example, consider the following

1) Thankfully, he was oblivious to the pain.
2) He was, thankfully, oblivious to the pain.

To my ear, in #2 the "thankfully" is something of a throwaway (becoming something of a parenthetical aside), putting the emphasis on the obliviousness and de-emphasizing the importance of the speaker whereas in #1, putting the "thankfully" up front puts slightly more emphasis on the speaker and seems to be implying some importance to the speaker's opinion.

But the important thing is that I have NO belief that everyone would agree with that point of view.

 

[berkeman]

Should I write "He only found it once" ? - or "He found it only once".

I try use RPN wherever possible...

"He found it once only.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Yes, there is no correct rule for placing adverbs, but I'd be happy with an incorrect rule (similar to the familiar rule about using "which" versus "that" which was coined by Strunk and White http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/50years.pdf).

Even a plausible incorrect rule that applied in special cases would be interesting.


To wit:
When the verb "will" is used to indicate assent, the adverb "only", if used, shall be placed after it.
E.g. "He will only wash the windows." Not: "He only will wash the windows".

 

[fresh_42]

A situation I often debate is where to place adverbs in a sentence, especially the adverb "only". Should I write "He only found it once" ? - or "He found it only once". I need some sort of rule to go by - to comfort me when I obey it and give me glee when I'm naughty and ignore it. (I don't need rule to make a binding decision, just a rule that will make the decision process more interesting).

Perhaps a good rule is to write in minimalist way and not use adverbs, but sometimes they cannot be avoided. (Or should I say "but they sometimes cannot be avoided"?)

And to me it is even harder. In German you don't have strict rules where which part of the sentence has to be placed where, and to make it worse, no "ly" to distinguish between adverb and adjective: they are the same word. This means I have a completely different intuition and it's hard to figure out the correct English version.

I'm looking forward to this thread to learn rules about adverbs!

 

[fresh_42]

E.g. "He will only wash the windows." Not: "He only will wash the windows".

That's the obvious example of right and wrong. But what about: He will wash the windows only?

 

[berkeman]

I'm looking forward to this thread to learn rules about adverbs!

I think the thread is going swimmingly!

 

[Stephen Tashi]

In German you don't have strict rules where which part of the sentence has to be placed where, and to make it worse, no "ly" to distinguish between adverb and adjective: they are the same word.

The mention of German reminds me of how varied the placement of "nicht" is in sentences. (Perhaps explained by https://www.thoughtco.com/the-position-of-nicht-1444481 ). For English speakers, It brings up the question of whether "not" is an adverb.

In English, the usage of "not" in examples like "I will give it my full attention - not!" is ironic and, I think, relatively modern.

A conjectured rule would be: "Not" is placed after the verb it modifies. However, there must be some interesting exceptions to that. There is also the complexity of the order of adverbs - "not only" versus "only not".

(If I write "He is not the only one" then is "only" an adjective?)

 

[Stephen Tashi]

That's the obvious example of right and wrong. But what about: He will wash the windows only?

"He will wash the windows only", sounds correct to me, but very formal - something from a written contract.

 

[phinds]

The problem with the window washing examples (and my point is not limited to that example) is that the MEANING can change radically depending on the placement and how you interpret it

For example:

He will mess with the windows, but the ONLY thing he will do to them is to wash them

He will only wash windows, not other things.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

The problem with the window washing examples (and my point is not limited to that example) is that the MEANING can change radically depending on the placement and how you interpret it

For example:

He will mess with the windows, but the ONLY thing he will do to them is to wash them

He will only wash windows, not other things.

Yes. The statement "He will wash the windows only" (to me) conveys that the windows will be washed, but that other things are not guaranteed to be washed. While "He will only wash he windows" might have the same meaning, but if it occurred in a context where the windows needed repair, it would convey that the only service provided for the windows was washing. Additional services (washing or otherwise) might or might not be provided for non-window items.

 

[fresh_42]

Funny enough, this example translated to German has far less varieties. Correct is: He will only the windows wash. or Only the windows will he wash. All others are wrong, and the English funny swap between object and predicate in the first sentence is equally funny in German if the correct English version will be translated word by word. I find the German version better, since only refers to the windows, not to the action! Why put it in front of the predicate?

 

[256bits]

He will only wash windows, not other things

I think that should be,
He will only wash windows, not dry them.

as opposed to,
He will wash only windows, not other things.

 

[256bits]

He will wash the windows only

The "only" is redundant.
He will wash the windows.
or,
He will not wash the windows.

Add a word to the end of the the sentence completes the thought.
He will wash the windows only tomorrow.

 

[mjc123]

The difficulty arises because in spoken English the emphasis of the voice will usually tell you what "only" refers to, whereas in written English this clue is absent, and your sentence can be ambiguous. Consider the sentence "Catholics only eat fish on Fridays". Does this mean they eat only fish (and nothing else) on Fridays, or that they eat fish only on Fridays (and no other days)? In speech, the stress will tell you; in writing, it won't, though you may have some context to guide you (e.g. a discussion of what to eat on Friday).
The best rule in writing is generally to put "only" before the word or phrase it qualifies ("Catholics eat only fish on Fridays"). This may sometimes produce a sentence that reads less naturally than the colloquial order, but it is less ambiguous. The danger is to "write what you would say", when you don't realize the ambiguity for a reader, because you know what you mean.

 

[symbolipoint]

"He will wash the windows only", sounds correct to me, but very formal - something from a written contract.

Knowing that an adverb may modify an adjective, or a verb, gives you a clue to which word next-to to put the adverb. I say "next-to" and not "which side".


"He will wash the windows only", not exactly what I just described, since here, this "adverb" seems to be working as an adjective, placing a restriction on windows, that windows will be affected but no other objects will be affected (washed). Now I wonder: Can "only" function as an adjective and not be restricted to usage as an adverb?

 

[Mark44]

Yes, there is no correct rule for placing adverbs

I disagree.
Per "Essentials of English," by Hopper, Gale, Foote, and Griffith, "adverbs should be placed next to the structures they modify."

E.g. "He will only wash the windows." Not: "He only will wash the windows".

Neither of these is very clear. A better construction would be "He will wash only the windows."

Regarding the first example above, "He will only wash the windows.", the implication is the he won't wipe them dry after washing them or do anything other than just wash them. In the second example, "He only will wash the windows", the implication is that he washes the windows with no one else helping.

In my example, the implication is that he's not also washing the doors or the walls.

I didn't find anything after a quick scan of my Strunk & White, and I don't have my copy of Fowler any longer, which I believe included an opinion similar to the one I quoted above. I also gave away my copy of "Chicago Manual of Style," which likely offered similar advice.

Disclosure: I used several English usage guides in my job as a technical writer for a large software firm.

 

[Mark44]

The best rule in writing is generally to put "only" before the word or phrase it qualifies

+1

 

[mjc123]

"He will wash the windows only", not exactly what I just described, since here, this "adverb" seems to be working as an adjective, placing a restriction on windows, that windows will be affected but no other objects will be affected (washed). Now I wonder: Can "only" function as an adjective and not be restricted to usage as an adverb?

In this example, it is acting as an adverb. It can be an adjective with the sense "sole" or "unique", e.g. "She is an only child"; "This is the only surviving original copy of Magna Carta".

 

[phinds]

The "only" is redundant.
He will wash the windows.
or,
He will not wash the windows.

Add a word to the end of the the sentence completes the thought.
He will wash the windows only tomorrow.

Nonsense. "He will wash the windows only" is a grammatically correct way of saying "he will wash the windows but he won't wash anything else."

 

[phinds]

I think that should be,
He will only wash windows, not dry them.

as opposed to,
He will wash only windows, not other things.

As I said earlier, opinions will often differ but they are rarely about grammatical correctness, just about the meaning of grammatically different constructs. You choose to interpret things differently than I choose to interpret things. That doesn't make either one of us right or wrong.

 

[gleem]

I believe that only is preferred to be placed in this case next to once, the word that it most appropriately modifies. She finds things all the time but this thing only once. If "she only finds ..." .. you would expect to be told the conditions in which she finds. e.g. She only finds things under her nose.

 

[256bits]

As I said earlier, opinions will often differ but they are rarely about grammatical correctness, just about the meaning of grammatically different constructs. You choose to interpret things differently than I choose to interpret things. That doesn't make either one of us right or wrong.

Neither right nor wrong, I'll agree, up to a point.
I just don't want to encourage people to speak like Yoda.
"Windows wash only he."
can be interpreted several ways:
1. He, and only he, washes the windows.
2. He washes the windows and does no other task to the windows.
3 He washes nothing else but windows.

Interpretation is the definitely the problem, and for a speaker or writer to convey the meaning of his words, so that misinterpretation is minimized to the audience, certain rules should be followed. In colloquial English, the meaning may not have so drastic consequences, but sign a contract, and have it turn sour, and people then definitely argue about meaning.
( or is it ..., and then people definitely argue about meaning. or... and people definitely then argue about meaning.)
(I'm not even sure if they mean the same thing... -- generally, yes, but in the specific sense I would say not. )
That's pretty much what I was attempting to convey.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

E.g. "He will only wash the windows." Not: "He only will wash the windows".

That's the obvious example of right and wrong.

Hi fresh:

I do not understand why you put forth this as an example of right vs. wrong. I find both sentences correct depending on the indented emphasis. The second sentence expresses the point with more emphasis if that is needed. The following is a dialog that illustrates this.

A: I want John to wash the windows and then mop the floor.
B: That is not what John does. He will only wash the windows.
A: But it is important that he also mops the floor.
B: You obviously fail to understand John's contract. He only will wash the windows.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Buzz Bloom]

In colloquial English, the meaning may not have so drastic consequences, but sign a contract, and have it turn sour, and people then definitely argue about meaning.

Hi 256bits:

The meaning of what is expressed in a contract is not based on rules. It is based on a history of rulings by a court with respect to resolution of conflicts regarding interpretation. When a knowledgeable lawyer writes a contract s/he repeats the exact language from some previous contract on which a court has made a ruling regarding interpretation. Thus, what is used as rules are court formalized practices.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[fresh_42]

I do not understand why you put forth this as an example of right vs. wrong.

E.g. "He will only wash the windows." Not: "He only will wash the windows".

I do not know whether it was wrong or not. It sounded wrong to me, as it had been meant: Him only will wash ...

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Per "Essentials of English," by Hopper, Gale, Foote, and Griffith, "adverbs should be placed next to the structures they modify."

Does "next to" mean before or after? Or can it be either?

"This is the only surviving original copy of Magna Carta".

A gerund such as "surviving" can be modifed by an adverb. So is "only" an adjective in that example?

 

[Mark44]

Does "next to" mean before or after? Or can it be either?

I lean toward "before," but in some cases it could alternatively be "after." Ex: "I went there only once." vs. "I went there once only." Either of these is an improvement over "I only went there once."

A gerund such as "surviving" can be modifed by an adverb. So is "only" an adjective in that example?

It seems to me that "only," "surviving," and "original" are all modifiers of "copy," making all of them adjectives.

 

[256bits]

Hi 256bits:

The meaning of what is expressed in a contract is not based on rules. It is based on a history of rulings by a court with respect to resolution of conflicts regarding interpretation. When a knowledgeable lawyer writes a contract s/he repeats the exact language from some previous contract on which a court has made a ruling regarding interpretation. Thus, what is used as rules are court formalized practices.

Regards,
Buzz

Which lends credence to my argument of following rules of written language so that ambiguity is minimized.

Take a possible sentence from an fictitious instruction manual for the operator of a machine,
Just turn the compensating knob only when the indicator dial measures 50 degrees C.
Turn just the compensating knob only when the indicator dial measures 50 degrees C.
Turn the compensating knob only just when the indicator dial measures 50 degrees C.

In the first sentence "just" us an adverb, qualifying the verb "turn." <-- ie you don't have to push or pull it out
In the second sentence "just" is an adjective, qualifying the noun "knob." <-- don't touch anything else
In the third sentence "just" us an adverb qualifying the adverbial clause. <-- a directive on when to do the action

The word "only" is being used to modify the adverbial phrase.

Since all three sentences are leaky in regards to actual interpretation from the reader ( as mentioned in several posts ), and require extra brain power to parse, it might be better to leave out the qualifiers completely. Easier to remember.

Turn the compensating knob when the indicator dial measures 50 degrees C.

And add extra full instructions as needed.

 

[fresh_42]

"I went there only once." vs. "I went there once only." Either of these is an improvement over "I only went there once."

I think it even has a different meaning: The first two state you have been there only once, the third one leaves open whether you got there by car the other times.

 

[Mark44]

I think it even has a different meaning: The first two state you have been there only once, the third one leaves open whether you got there by car the other times.

Right. This is a point that several others and I have made earlier in this thread. The "only" in "I only went there once." modifies "went."

Compare "Bill only eats fruit." vs. "Bill eats only fruit." The first example suggests that Bill doesn't mash it into his hair, or tosses it at other people, etc. The second example clearly states that Bill consumes fruit and no other kind of food (or nonfood).

 

[Buzz Bloom]

The first example suggests that Bill doesn't mash it into his hair,

Hi Mark:

I would edit your observation as follows:

The first example includes the unlikely possibility that Bill might mash fruit into his hair, and makes clear that he doesn't do this.​

The reason I make this edit is that in the absence of any context that would make Bill's mashing fruit in his hair a plausible possibility, I believe it would be unreasonable to even consider that Bill might mash fruit into his hair. Therefore, n the absence of an appropriate context, I find the two examples convey the same message.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Buzz Bloom]

the third one leaves open whether you got there by car the other times.

Hi fresh:

I apologize for my denseness, but I have no idea where the "car" comes into the interpretation of the message.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[fresh_42]

Hi fresh:

I apologize for my denseness, but I have no idea where the "car" comes into the interpretation of the message.

Regards,
Buzz

to go, went, gone

He only went there, i.e. he might have come there by other means. The fact that to go degenerated to to appear or similar doesn't mean, that it cannot be used in its original meaning for going by foot.