39

Which is grammatically correct?

I can only do so much in this time.

or

I can do only so much in this time.

41

In the given example there's not much difference. But there can be a great deal of difference in other constructions involving the same idea. Consider:

I only eat fish when I'm sick.

I eat fish only when I'm sick.

I eat only fish when I'm sick.

I submit that the first sentence is a bit ambiguous, and could be clarified in the direction of the second or third. Two and three mean entirely different things.

NOTE: In spoken English it is relatively easy to make the first sentence unambiguous by use of a vocal stress on the part you wish to indicate belongs with only.

I only eat fish when I'm sick. (I eat only fish when I'm sick.)
I only eat fish when I'm sick. (I eat fish only when I'm sick.)
I only eat fish when I'm sick. (I eat fish only when I'm sick.)

Certainly you can do the same thing in writing or typing via underlining or italicization, but sentence structure is perhaps a simpler way to draw the distinction, requiring no additional adjustments.

  • 2
    Well exemplified :) – coleopterist Oct 17 '12 at 15:29
  • 3
    It's worth noting that the ambiguity in the first sentence is essentially an inadequacy in the writing system. In their spoken form, intonation disambiguates readings of the first sentence and brings at least two different readings to the second. – Neil Coffey Oct 17 '12 at 16:17
  • My general take is that placing only immediately before the verb is quite often the very worst possible place for it. I always rearrange if possible to make the sentence stronger. – tchrist Oct 24 '12 at 11:43
  • 1
    @tchrist: Milton was able to manage the feat quite handily in "On His Blindness" when he wrote, "They also serve who only stand and wait." I think the issue is placement of only as close as possible to the word that draws the distinction, be it verb, noun, preposition, or whatever. – Robusto Oct 24 '12 at 12:00
  • 1
    I think this is a credible conversation: "You must eat to get better! I'll get you some fish and chips". "Okay, but forget the chips. I eat fish only when I'm sick". But then again it's entirely credible with exactly the same meaning using I eat only fish.... In short, with this specific combination of subject + verb + object + temporal modifier, there's scope for ambiguity with any of those 3 positions. There's even ambiguity if you put only at the start (of an utterance, but probably not of a conversation), since it might mean something akin to Oh! - and by the way. – FumbleFingers Aug 4 '16 at 17:41
4

They are both grammatically correct, and both mean the same thing.

(However, "in this time" doesn't sound quite right in this context. "In the time available" might be better).

  • Like with english.stackexchange.com/questions/5464/… I think the difference, to the extent that it exists at all, is one of emphasis. – Marthaª Nov 23 '10 at 20:32
  • 2
    I agree that these sentences here both mean the same thing, but want to add that this can't be generalized to any adverb next to a verb. Sometimes, it will make a difference which side of the verb the adverb is on. – Kosmonaut Nov 23 '10 at 20:34
  • I'm not sure I understand the downvote for this. For the question that was actually asked, this answer is 100% correct. It's irrelevant that there might exist a question for which this is the wrong answer. – Marthaª Nov 23 '10 at 21:30
  • They're both grammatically correct, but they don't necessarily mean the same thing. ?"I can just do so much in this time" versus "I can do just so much in this time": I think the first is questionable & the second means the same thing as "I can do only so much in this time". Some people are red/green colorblind & will tell you that they look the same; some are tone-deaf ("relatively insensitive to differences in musical pitch") & can't tell the difference between two different notes; & most native English speakers are semantically challenged & indiscriminate (cf. "fewer" vs. "less"). – user21497 Jan 10 '13 at 10:50
2
  1. "Only I eat fish when I'm sick" means "Only I, and nobody else, eat fish when I'm sick". In this case, only is an adjective, qualifying the pronoun which directly follows it, I.

  2. "I only eat fish when I'm sick" means "I only eat fish when I'm sick. That is the only thing I do with fish when I'm sick". In this case, only is an adverb, qualifying the verb which directly follows it, eat.

  3. "I eat only fish when I'm sick" means "I eat only fish when I'm sick; I eat nothing else beside fish". In this case, only is an adjective, qualifying the noun which directly follows it, fish.

  4. "I eat fish only when I'm sick" means "I eat fish only when I'm sick; when I am not sick, I do not eat fish." In this case, only is an adverb, qualifying the adverbial clause which directly follows it.

  • 5
    "I only eat fish when I'm sick" would be more likely to be understood as "I don't eat fish except when I'm sick", or perhaps "When I'm sick, I eat nothing but fish". In order to ensure that the meaning was "The only thing I do to fish is eat then", extra emphasis would have to be placed on "eat" in pronunciation. – psmears Jan 14 '11 at 15:51
  • I eat fish when only I'm sick. – coleopterist Oct 17 '12 at 15:30
  • 1
    You've got the adverb/adjective dichotomy wrong. In all four of your sentences, only is an adverb. – Talia Ford Oct 7 '13 at 6:28
  • Talia Ford, I think Webster's would disagree with you: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/only. It seems to me that definition 1, sense 2a, would apply to both 1 and 3. – Rodney Atkins Jul 19 '18 at 21:52
1

Robusto's answer provides an accurate, commonsense illustration of how the positioning of only in a sentence can significantly influence the sense of the sentence. The followup answer from systemovich offers what one might call the "strict constructionist" (or "machine-applied") interpretation of sentences that include the word only.

In a similar vein, Theodore Bernstein, The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage (1973) lays out a "normal" practical rule for deciding where to situate only in a sentence:

ONLY

Normally the proper positioning of only requires no more than asking yourself, "What does it actually modify?" Thus a headline that says, "$35,000 Bond Thief Only Nets Paper," does not conform to the normal order; the only patently modifies "paper," not "nets," and so should adjoin it. An interesting exercise for developing only awareness was cited in the publication Word Study, distributed by G. $ C. Merriam Company, as follows: "Eight different meanings result from placing only in the eight possible positions in this sentence: 'I hit him in the eye yesterday.'" Try it.

However, to his credit, Bernstein goes on to note two important exceptions to the mechanistic assignment of only within a sentence:

The words "normal" and "normally" have been prominent in the foregoing paragraphs. They are intended to underline the fact that there are abnormal but proper placements for only. One abnormal placement is dictated by idiom, meaning that a normal placement would sound awkward and contrived. Example: "What is happening now can only be called a paperback-book explosion." The normal position for only here would be just ahead of "a paperback-book explosion," which is the phrase it modifies. But placed there, it sounds pedantic and unnatural.

Another "abnormal" placement, which is not really abnormal but only seems so, occurs when the only is a sentence adverb, that is, when it modifies an entire statement rather than a word or phrase. Example: "He only thought that he was being helpful." The only here is not intended to modify merely "thought," as would be the case if "thought" were heavily stressed. Nor is the meaning that his mental process was confined to a single idea, as would be implied if the only followed "thought." Rather the intention is to apply only to the entire sentence, and a sentence adverb of this kind usually precedes the verb.

Some combination of idiomatic usage and what Bernstein calls "sentence adverb" usage may well be at work in the expression "I can only do so much." An Ngram chart of "can only do so much" (blue line) versus "can do only so much" (red line) for the period 1850–2005 shows a rather remarkable increase in the frequency of the first expression since about 1970, a period during which the frequency of the second expression has increased only slightly:

Evidently, either there has been a startling increase in the frequency of instances where writers are trying to indicate that "they can only do so much" (as opposed to, say, promising so much) or the wording "can only do so much" has come into its own as a set phrase meaning "cannot do more than a certain unspecified maximum amount." The latter explanation is much more plausible than the former, in my view.

-1

The latter is probably what you mean to say.

I can eat only so much in one sitting.

This means just what you think: In one sitting, you're only able to eat until you're full.

I can only eat so much in one sitting.

This implies that in this situation, you can only eat, as if you're compelled to do so. This is usually not what someone intends.

  • 2
    No, the second example doesn't imply that - it can equally (probably even more likely) mean the same as the first example. – psmears Jan 14 '11 at 15:53

protected by tchrist Jul 1 '14 at 0:59

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?