Jane's Posts

Aug 19 1998

[on the improper use of 'only']

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?

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.

jane