0
Anonymous Posted 19 years ago
Grammar
The position of only
Hello!
Considering the following sentence:
The child had two pair of shoes.
If I decided to insert the adverb only, the answer would be:
The child had only two pair of shoes (isn't it ?).
But would it be wrong if I also wrote: The child only had two pair of shoes (?). Is there any 'grammar explanation' in case both forms are correct?
(because for me, in this case, this position change doesn't seem to alter the meaning of the sentence).
Thanks for your attention,
Perla
Considering the following sentence:
The child had two pair of shoes.
If I decided to insert the adverb only, the answer would be:
The child had only two pair of shoes (isn't it ?).
But would it be wrong if I also wrote: The child only had two pair of shoes (?). Is there any 'grammar explanation' in case both forms are correct?
(because for me, in this case, this position change doesn't seem to alter the meaning of the sentence).
Thanks for your attention,
Perla
Top answer
Generally, put the "only" just before the thing you mean to modify. If you put it before "had" I would not mistake your meaning - I would not think the child had two pairs of shoes but no clothes, for example. But there are other times when it could cause confusion.
- Generally, put the "only" just before the thing you mean to modify.
- If you put it before "had" I would not mistake your meaning - I would not think the child had two pairs of shoes but no clothes, for example.
- But there are other times when it could cause confusion.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
7 Answers
0
Generally, put the "only" just before the thing you mean to modify.
If you put it before "had" I would not mistake your meaning - I would not think the child had two pairs of shoes but no clothes, for example.
But there are other times when it could cause confusion.
If you put it before "had" I would not mistake your meaning - I would not think the child had two pairs of shoes but no clothes, for example.
But there are other times when it could cause confusion.
00
0
You're welcome, Perla.
Consider registering on the site - you won't have to wait for you posts to be approved (and we're a fun group!).
Consider registering on the site - you won't have to wait for you posts to be approved (and we're a fun group!).
00
0
Grammar GeekGenerally, put the "only" just before the thing you mean to modify.As I have stated before, this is m
If you put it before "had" I would not mistake your meaning - I would not think the child had two pairs of shoes but no clothes, for example.
But there are other times when it could cause confusion.
00
There have been quite a few discussions of this topic.
See .
See .
See .
CJ
See .
See .
See .
CJ
00
Hi,
Or you could say The only child had two pair of shoes.
This means that the child had no brothe
Or you could say The only child had two pair of shoes.
This means that the child had no brothe
0
Related Questions