Placement of adverbs - "only" and others

[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.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

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.

H i fresh:

Thanks for your response. If I understand the quote above, I then do not get the reason why in Mark's #32 post "went" should be restricted to mean any form of travel in the first two examples, but "went" can also have the archaic meaning of specifically traveling by foot in the third example.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Compare "Bill only eats fruit." vs. "Bill eats only fruit."

If the point is to emphasize how restricted Bill's diet is, I think that in everyday speech "Bill only eats fruit" will be heard more often than "Bill eats only fruit" - regardless of the implications of "only eats" versus "eats only" in the context of an instruction manual.

An interesting problem in studying word usage in the works of respected authors is whether to include word usage in diaglogue versus only considering word usage in narration. There's also the question of whether the author's narrator is portrayed as character who might speak differently than the author himself.

 

[Mark44]

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.

I threw in the "mashing it into his hair" as an extreme example.
If Bill "only eats fruit," we can reasonably assume that this means that Bill doesn't throw the fruit or give it to his pet turtle or use it in any other way other than consuming it. There are lots of less extreme possibilities than the "mashing it into his hair" one that the phrase doesn't permit

 

[Stephen Tashi]

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

Would the same hold in "This is the only original copy of Magna Carta surviving" ?

 

[Mark44]

If the point is to emphasize how restricted Bill's diet is, I think that in everyday speech "Bill only eats fruit" will be heard more often than "Bill eats only fruit" - regardless of the implications of "only eats" versus "eats only" in the context of an instruction manual.

We're not talking about "everyday speech" here. Rather, we're talking about subtle differences that the different placement of an adverb makes. I cited several examples of usage guides (Fowler, Strunk & White, Chicago Manual of Style for three) that list lots of rules that writers can/should use to make their writing as clear as possible.

 

[Mark44]

Would the same hold in "This is the only original copy of Magna Carta surviving" ?

Not quite. In your example, "only" and "original" are adjectives that modify "copy," but the "surviving" seems to me to me to be part of a dependent clause "(that is) surviving" with "that is" being implied. Putting "surviving" at the end seems clunky to me. I suspect that many copy editors would rewrite this to "This is the only original copy of Magna Carta that still survives."

 

[Stephen Tashi]

We're not talking about "everyday speech" here.

I disagree. This post appeared originally in the section on "Science Fiction and Fantasy Media" because it had some bearing on writing fiction. Word usage in fiction need not slavishly follow everyday speech, but it also had better not read like an instruction manual.

However, I confess an interest in rules about adverbs based on technical writing. So please continue.

(Should I have written "had also" instead of "also had" ?)

 

[phinds]

Not quite. In your example, "only" and "original" are adjectives that modify "copy," but the "surviving" seems to me to me to be part of a dependent clause "(that is) surviving" with "that is" being implied. Putting "surviving" at the end seems clunky to me. I suspect that many copy editors would rewrite this to "This is the only original copy of Magna Carta that still survives."

I agree, although I would more likely say "This is the only surviving original copy of Magna Carta."

 

[Mark44]

I disagree. This post appeared originally in the section on "Science Fiction and Fantasy Media" because it had some bearing on writing fiction. Word usage in fiction need not slavishly follow everyday speech, but it also had better not read like an instruction manual.

I don't venture into the SF section much, so it wasn't clear from the OP that this thread was a follow-on to another thread. If an author is writing dialog, the rules are much less restrictive than for an author who is trying to present information in the clearest, least ambiguous way. Keeping the adverb close to the verb it modifies generally makes the meaning a lot less ambiguous -- that's been the point I've been trying to make. The examples I made up might not be all that realistic, but they show the ambiguity of misplaced adverbs.

 

[symbolipoint]

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

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

Others should be able to support this:
"surviving" is an adjective.
Modifying that with "only", means "only" is being used as an adverb to modify "surviving".

 

[symbolipoint]

Forty-five posts, all because of "only", the adverb.
Members may like to find their/his/her favorite textbook on English Grammar And Usage. Study, and have fun.

 

[phinds]

Forty-five posts, all because of "only", the adverb.
Members may like to find their/his/her favorite textbook on English Grammar And Usage. Study, and have fun.

Nah, we'd rather just offer fairly pointless opinions back and forth.

 

[fresh_42]

Forty-five posts, all because of "only", the adverb.

Let us talk about merely.

 

[symbolipoint]

Forty-five posts, all because of "only", the adverb.
Members may like to find their/his/her favorite textbook on English Grammar And Usage. Study, and have fun.

Nah, we'd rather just offer fairly pointless opinions back and forth.

My recommendation is honest. Members might really enjoy reviewing or studying English Grammar. Much to learn. Much to relearn. Probably some true enjoyment also. I could also use a review; even though I had done it a couple of times before.

 

[fresh_42]

My recommendation is honest. Members might really enjoy reviewing or studying English Grammar. Much to learn. Much to relearn. Probably some true enjoyment also. I could also use a review; even though I had done it a couple of times before.

I think native speakers are in general not necessarily a good address to ask about grammar. They intuitively use it without having a rule in mind. I remember that we often asked our American colleague if we had a question about German grammar, simply because he had learned it - or at least knew where to look it up.

 

[Mark44]

"surviving" is an adjective.
Modifying that with "only", means "only" is being used as an adverb to modify "surviving".

I don't think so.
The original expression was "only surviving original copy" (post #20). Here "only" is one of three adjectives that modify the noun "copy." If the example were "we were only surviving, not thriving." then I would agree that "only" modifies "surviving," and is in this case acting as an adverb.

 

[Mark44]

I think native speakers are in general not necessarily a good address to ask about grammar.

That's probably true, generally speaking, with native speakers of English, especially since grammar isn't taught at anything other than a superficial level in many (most?) public schools. A former lady friend of mine, who holds a PhD in Biology, was particularly unclear on how pronouns should be used; e.g., "Ann threw a party for Bill and I."

In the "olden days" students had to diagram sentences, reinforcing the ideas of subject, object,predicate, adverbial and adjectival phrases, and all the rest. I doubt that 5% of US public schools do that any more.

 

[Mark44]

Nah, we'd rather just offer fairly pointless opinions back and forth.

Some of the opinions are fairly pointless, but others are backed up by references. Just sayin'.

Keep in mind that this forum is about linguistics, at least in part.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Keep in mind that this forum is about linguistics, at least in part.

Isn't a major topic in linguistics, formulating rules about how native speakers use words? (That's not a rhetorical question.)