1

How can I counteract the meaning of "only" changing due to verb modifier?

"Only" has a different meaning if there is a modifier to the verb.

I want to make "I only strive towards success," mean the same thing as "I only strive. This striving is towards success."

If "only" wasn't a tricky word then "I only strive towards success," would mean the exact same thing as "I only strive. This striving is towards success." However in reality, the first sentence means that I strive and this striving is exclusively towards success. But the first sentence does not necessarily mean that the only action I do is striving towards success. And the second sentences means what I wish the first sentence meant: "The only action I do is striving towards success."

My question is the following. How can "I only strive towards success," be changed to mean the second sentences?

  • 1
    “The only thing I do is strive toward success.” Is that what you’re after? – Jim Oct 27 '17 at 01:23
  • @Jim Yes. Although I think it would be better to replace "the only thing I do is strive" with "my actions only are striving." –  Oct 27 '17 at 03:44
  • You are free to think whatever you like. – Jim Oct 27 '17 at 03:49
  • And in any case, why would you want to focus on just the verb "strive", rather than the whole VP? – BillJ Oct 27 '17 at 08:19
  • @BillJ I don't think I only want to focus on the verb "strive." If your referring to my comment to Jim; I am not excluding the verb phrase. The full sentence would be, "My actions only are striving toward success." –  Oct 27 '17 at 13:52
  • @jxh What part of it means something I don't think it means? –  Oct 27 '17 at 23:39
  • 1
    @user235979: Sorry. How about I only strive and only towards success. – jxh Oct 28 '17 at 00:12
  • @jxh (1) You don't have to be sorry. If there is a part of it that means something I don't think it means, I would like to know what it is. (2) That doesn't seem grammatically correct. I don't think "and" can be used as a seperator between a verb and its modifier (the modifier being "only towards success"). –  Oct 29 '17 at 03:43
  • @user235979: I realize I am being a bit liberal with the use of the conjunction, but I am reversing the order of the conditional phrase. So, if it were better for you: Only towards success, I only strive. The repetitive use of only is meant to clarify that it is being applied to both the action and the goal. – jxh Oct 30 '17 at 06:42
  • As I think more about what you are trying to say, it seems to be something like I always try to succeed. – jxh Oct 30 '17 at 19:48
  • 1
    If you remove the "toward success", what does "I only strive", on its own, actually mean? If you "only strive" does it mean you never eat, walk, sleep etc? – WS2 Dec 14 '19 at 07:36
  • @WS2 Exactly. Why has it taken till now for someone to CV on 'lack of clarity' grounds? – Edwin Ashworth Apr 07 '21 at 10:46
  • Are you the only one to strive? I think not. Reminds me of the Liberty Insurance commercial: "Only pay for what you need" instead of "Pay for only what you need." – rhetorician Aug 05 '21 at 13:06

3 Answers3

0

I'm not sure I see any difference between the meanings of

  • I only strive towards success.
  • I only strive. This striving is towards success.

But, since only is a quantifier with a stressed focus element, if you want to make strive the focus, just stress it. Normally one would stress success as the focus of only, and stressing the last word in a sentence is a natural pattern, so that's almost the automatic interpretation.

BTW, by stress, I mean say it LOUDer (the first syllable of louder is stressed). English has several levels of stress, and most words have a stressed syllable; further, every sentence has words that are stressed or unstressed. This is why we're not often confused about what only means in speech; that only happens in writing, which doesn't represent stress.

John Lawler
  • 107,887
0

"I only strive towards success." -- ambiguous.

We mean
"(I only strive) (towards success)."

So it would be,
"I only strive, towards success." -- the comma removes all doubt, and serves just that purpose, being otherwise redundant.

Kris
  • 37,386
-1

As with any adverb, the precise position of the adverb makes a difference: before/after the verb/verb phrase and before/after the clause/sentence.

As with most words, only has a variety of shades of meaning, and we see that in your sentence:

I only strive towards success.

First there is one you mention: the only thing I strive for is success. Then there is the broader sense: the only thing I do is strive for success. Then there is an apologetic sense: I was only doing my best to succeed. Then there is an alternation sense: Only I wasn't trying to fail but to succeed.

Generally language is ambiguous, and the longer and more complex the sentence the more ambiguous it tends to be. Sometimes the best way to clarify is by breaking the sentence up, or by following with a disambiguating phrase or sentence, as you have explored. Sometimes you can move the adverb or change the tense to clarify. Often you don't need to do anything because it is clear in context.

Consider these variants (not all of which sound natural with the verb phrase used) - you can match them against the four shades of meaning above (exercise for the reader, figure out the permutation and the logic):

  1. Only I strive towards success.
  2. I only strive towards success.
  3. I strive only towards success.
  4. I strive towards success only.

So the answer to the question is "move it": move the "only" to the place that gives the intended meaning!

David M W Powers
  • 1,418
  • 2
    This does provide helpful information. However it doesn't seem to answer the question. –  Oct 27 '17 at 03:28
  • The answer to the question, as encapsulated here, is to move it in relation to the verb and its modifier. Added as the final paragraph. – David M W Powers Nov 21 '17 at 14:22