Let’s take a moment to celebrate a word in our language that carries impressive power. It has a specific purpose and meaning, yet is also versatile, much like a pocketknife. The word is only.
It’s a handy word, a compact four letters, and we all use it with a clear definition in mind. But what makes it noteworthy is its function in making an idea clear. When the word only is expressed, it draws a line, establishes a border, and separates those within from those without. It can be humble in its job: a sign reading “Employees Only” or “Buses and Right Turns Only” is not taken as a shout or a threat, but as a statement of fact, casting no judgment on its reader; the unspoken response is along the lines of, “Oh. Okay.” And even if rigid enforcement is implied (“Members Only,” “Only Staff With Level 3 Clearance Beyond This Point”), again there’s no intention of raising the reader’s pulse rate. That task would be ably performed by an exclamation point.
(Word fun: the next time you see a sign, any sign at all, mentally add an exclamation point to the end and see the tone suddenly turn harsh: “Yield!” “Closed Sundays!” “Caution, Children Playing!”)
Unlike many words or expressions, only easily crosses linguistic barriers in most cases, with solamente, nur, or только performing identical roles in their respective tongues. And the word does have its synonyms in English, e.g. “simply,” “just,” “solely,” and the like. Some of these even add a subtle tweak to the meaning, as synonyms often do: “merely” or “exclusively” add a slight color to the concept. What makes only stand out is that it can almost always be substituted for any of these, er, substitutes with little or no loss of meaning.
Is this a fussy distinction? It can be, but it does illustrate how precisely the word can alter the meaning of a statement. For an elaborate example, take a look at the following sentence:
He says that he likes her.
Now, create six new sentences by placing the word only in front of each existing word in turn. Six new ideas are expressed, and clearly “He only says that he likes her” makes a different point than does “He says that he likes only her.” It’s often a subtle distinction, but isn’t the goal of language to express subtle ideas in ways not just possible, but unmistakeable?
The example I used above is contrived, I admit, but it does show that only is versatile, because it can function as several parts of speech. It can be an adjective (“It was only a dream.”), an adverb (“He only slowed down at the intersection, but didn’t stop.”), and colloquially, even a noun (“My friends all have siblings, but I’m glad to be an only.”). What’s more, it can be a conjunction, and for this explanation I turn to our old friend The Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (Second Edition, Unabridged). Here we find an impressive and elegant example of the lexicographer’s art, which I reproduce in full:
But for, or with, this sole limitation, hindrance, or exception; were it not for this one condition, namely;—an adversative used elliptically with or without that; as, I would come only that I am engaged.
In a different essay, I pondered the quiet importance of infrastructure in life, the universe, and everything. The word only is a small, perhaps even humble piece of the language, but its meaning is fundamental to our thought, and expressing ourselves without it for only a day would prove difficult. I wasn’t able to do so in that last sentence.
For those who wonder about my choice of illustration: while conceiving and composing this piece, I found that “Only the Lonely” was playing itself continuously in my head. As a little salute to the great Roy Orbison, I share his photo with you.
