English q

[arkiv]

Grammar, pronunciation, etc.

[arkiv]

Dear members, which one is correct?
"he wrote only"
or
"he only wrote"

[scarpia]

Neither is incorrect.  "Mozart wrote only at night" emphasize "only" more than "Mozart only wrote at night."

[adamdavid80]

Neither is incorrect. 

Isn't this a double negative?  The proper english would be "Both are correct".   

(not trying to be a dick, I don't know nuthin' about that) 

[MishaK]

Isn't this a double negative?  The proper english would be "Both are correct".   

(not trying to be a dick, I don't know nuthin' about that) 

That, too, is a question of emphasis. BTW, if you followed all those silly rules in Strunk & White to a t, you'd have none of the great English-language literature, as all of it at some point violates those rules.

[mn dave]

That ain't no double negative.

[adamdavid80]

if you followed all those silly rules in Strunk & White to a t, you'd have none of the great English-language literature, as all of it at some point violates those rules.

Well, yeah, but, like, you know, my impression is epicous ain't currently tryin' to write no second sequel to Ullysses, if you know what I mean, you know what I'm sayin', he's just tryin' figure out how to speak english good.

word!

[scarpia]

Isn't this a double negative?  The proper english would be "Both are correct".   

(not trying to be a dick, I don't know nuthin' about that) 

There is no rule that says you can't use a double negative.  The rule is that a double negative is equivalent to a positive.  "I'm glad I was not left with nothing" is equivalent to "I'm glad I was left with something," although the emphasis is different.   In Italian, nowever, "I don't have nothing" is means  "I really have nothing."

[(poco) Sforzando]

That, too, is a question of emphasis. BTW, if you followed all those silly rules in Strunk & White to a t, you'd have none of the great English-language literature, as all of it at some point violates those rules.

Actually Strunk knew that perfectly well, as demonstrated in his introduction:

It is an old observation that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation. Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules. After he has learned, by their guidance, to write plain English adequate for everyday uses, let him look, for the secrets of style, to the study of the masters of literature.

(The original litttle book, btw, was written by William Strunk in 1918, and later expanded by E.B. White.)

George Orwell, too, in presenting his own six rules of writing, offers a similar caveat:

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
-- "Politics and the English Language"

As stated above, "Neither is incorrect" is perfectly grammatical, but it conveys a different emphasis from "Both are correct." As for
"he wrote only" / "he only wrote," it is generally recommended that the modifier should precede the word it modifies; e.g.: "Beethoven wrote only one opera" (not 50 of 'em). But again as stated above, there are many cases where no real ambiguity arises from the placement of the modifier. I can't see any real distinction between "Beethoven only wrote music" and "Beethoven wrote only music." Neither is incorrect; that is, both are correct.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Online, people would use underscores:

Or they would italicize or boldface, as if that would somehow compensate for a failure to secure the intended emphasis through sentence structure alone.

Thanks for posting the bit from Strunk and White. It is such a good, practical book that hits the target it sets for itself. I am surprised whenever I see "Elements of Style" attacked; they aren't making claims that it will magically turn you into Melville.  '

It was intended as a guide for college undergraduates, not as a prescriptive tract limiting the expressivity of English prose.

[arkiv]

So neither is incorrect.
Thanks.

[arkiv]

Is this response correct?

-Has anyone ever had Jamon Iberico ?

-Yes, the cheap versions at supermarkets.

[adamdavid80]

So neither is incorrect.
Thanks.

Cute!

But to belabor the point, the option of "Both are correct" is more readily understood.

The fewer moving parts the better.  As the saying goes, "Brevity is the soul".

[Joe Barron]

Dear members, which one is correct?
"he wrote only"
or
"he only wrote"

Actually, they are not interchangeable. One is indeed more accurate than the other, depending on what is meant. As an editor, I am frequently driven crazy by the misplaced "only," and I always correct it when I see it.

"Mozart wrote only at night" implies that that he did not write at all during the day.

"Mozart only wrote at night" implies there are other things he could have been doing at night, such as sleeping, partying, or making love to his wife, but he chose to write instead. He did nothing else. He only wrote.

In informal, spoken English,  "He only wrote" will often be used in both cases. You rarely hear anyone place the only after the verb, but there is a distinction.

[arkiv]

In informal, spoken English,  "He only wrote" will often be used in both cases.

Thanks, Joe Barron.
-----------------------------

Dear members, which one is correct:

"Do you know how to read?"
"Do you know reading?"

are both of them incorrect?

[karlhenning]

Do you know reading? isn't quite English . . . doesn't make sense.

Do you know how to read? is perfectly idiomatic.

[DavidRoss]

Karl is correct, unless the intended object of knowledge in "Do you know Reading?" is a town (like Reading, PA) or a member of the Reading families, in which case the "R" should be capitalized.

Joe Barron's lucid response to the earlier question is correct, including his observation that one rarely hears "only" placed after the verb in common speech--but when it is used correctly, it indicates a speaker likely to be more literate and thoughtful than most, unless other indicators suggest rigid pedantry rather than real consciousness.

[nut-job]

Actually, they are not interchangeable. One is indeed more accurate than the other, depending on what is meant. As an editor, I am frequently driven crazy by the misplaced "only," and I always correct it when I see it.

"Mozart wrote only at night" implies that that he did not write at all during the day.

"Mozart only wrote at night" implies there are other things he could have been doing at night, such as sleeping, partying, or making love to his wife, but he chose to write instead. He did nothing else. He only wrote.

No disagreement with your comment on the first formulation.  For the second, I see your point, but I tend to see the phrase as ambiguous at best.  If you want to be understood you would put it another way.  In spoken English the point could be made with a verbal emphasis, Mozart only wrote at night (emphasizing that "only wrote" is a unit).  In written English, I'd put it as "At night Mozart only wrote," or better yet "At night, Mozart did nothing but write."

[arkiv]

Do you know reading? isn't quite English . . . doesn't make sense.

Do you know how to read? is perfectly idiomatic.

Ok, I thought "do you know to read" was also available.

[nut-job]

Ok, I thought "do you know to read" was also available.

In English I can't say.   In American, no.