But the best authors sometimes transpose the word. "He only lived" ought to mean "he did not die or make any great sacrifice;" but "He only lived but till he was a man" (Macbeth, v. 8. 40) means "He lived only till he was a man." Compare also, "Who only hath immortality."
Only at the beginning of a statement = but. "I don't like to importune you, only I know you'll forgive me." Before an imperative it diminishes the favour asked: "Only listen to me." This use of only is mostly confined to letters.
Very often, only at the beginning of a sentence is used for alone: "Only ten came," "Only Cæsar approved." Alone is less ambiguous. The ambiguity of only is illustrated by such a sentence as, "Don't hesitate to bring a few friends of yours to shoot on my estate at any time. Only five (fifteen) came yesterday," which might mean, "I don't mind a few ; only don't bring so many as fifteen;" or else "Don't hesitate to bring a few more; no more than five came yesterday." In conversation, ambiguity is prevented by emphasis; but in a letter, only thus used might cause unfortunate mistakes. Write "Yesterday only five came," if you mean "no more than five."
*22. When "not only" precedes "but also," see that each is followed by the same part of speech.*
"He not only gave me advice but also help" is wrong. Write "He gave me, not only advice, but also help." On the other hand, "He not only gave me a grammar, but also lent me a dictionary," is right. Take an instance. "He spoke not only forcibly but also tastefully (adverbs), and this too, not only before a small audience, but also in (prepositions) a large public meeting, and his speeches were not only successful, but also (adjective) worthy of success."
*23. "At least," "always," and other adverbial adjuncts, sometimes produce ambiguity.*
"I think you will find my Latin exercise, at all events, as good as my cousin's." Does this mean (1) "my Latin exercise, though not perhaps my other exercises;" or (2), "Though not very good, yet, at all events, as good as my cousin's"? Write for (1), "My Latin exercise, at all events, you will find &c." and for (2), "I think you will find my Latin exercise as good as my cousin's, at all events."
The remedy is to avoid placing "at all events" between two emphatic words.
As an example of the misplacing of an adverbial adjunct, take "From abroad he received most favourable reports, but in the City he heard that a panic had broken out on the Exchange, and that the funds were fast falling." This ought to mean that the "hearing," and not (as is intended) that the "breaking out of the panic," took place in the City.
In practice, an adverb is often used to qualify a remote word, where the latter is more emphatic than any nearer word. This is very common when the Adverbial Adjunct is placed in an emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence: "On this very spot our guide declared that Claverhouse had fallen."
*24. Nouns should be placed near the nouns that they define.* In the very common sentence "The death is announced of Mr. John Smith, an author whose works &c.," the transposition is probably made from a feeling that, if we write "The death of Mr. John Smith is announced," we shall be obliged to begin a new sentence, "He was an author whose works &c." But the difficulty can be removed by writing "We regret to announce, or, we are informed of, the death of Mr. John Smith, an author, &c."
*25. Pronouns should follow the nouns to which they refer without the intervention of another noun.* Avoid, "John Smith, the son of Thomas Smith, who gave me this book," unless Thomas Smith is the antecedent of who. Avoid also "John supplied Thomas with money: he (John) was very well off."
When, however, one of two preceding nouns is decidedly superior to the other in emphasis, the more emphatic may be presumed to be the noun referred to by the pronoun, even though the noun of inferior emphasis intervenes. Thus: "At this moment the colonel came up, and took the place of the wounded general. He gave orders to halt." Here he would naturally refer to colonel, though general intervenes. A conjunction will often show that a pronoun refers to the subject of the preceding sentence, and not to another intervening noun. "The sentinel at once took aim at the approaching soldier, and fired. He then retreated to give the alarm."
It is better to adhere, in most cases, to Rule 25, which may be called (Bain) the Rule of Proximity. The Rule of Emphasis, of which an instance was given in the last paragraph, is sometimes misleading. A distinction might be drawn by punctuating thus:
"David the father of Solomon, who slew Goliath." "David, the father of Solomon who built the Temple." But the propriety of omitting a comma in each case is questionable, and it is better to write so as not to be at the mercy of commas.
*26. Clauses that are grammatically connected should be kept as close together as possible.* (But see 55.) The introduction of parentheses violating this rule often produced serious ambiguity. Thus, in the following: "The result of these observations appears to be in opposition to the view now generally received in this country, that in muscular effort the substance of the muscle itself undergoes disintegration." Here it is difficult to tell whether the theory of "disintegration" is (1) "the result," or, as the absence of a comma after "be" would indicate, (2) "in opposition to the result of these observations." If (1) is intended, add "and to prove" after "country;" if (2), insert "which is" after "country."
There is an excessive complication in the following:-"It cannot, at all events, if the consideration demanded by a subject of such importance from any one professing to be a philosopher, be given, be denied that &c."
Where a speaker feels that his hearers have forgotten the connection of the beginning of the sentence, he should repeat what he has said; e.g. after the long parenthesis in the last sentence he should recommence, "it cannot, I say, be denied." In writing, however, this licence must be sparingly used.
A short parenthesis, or modifying clause, will not interfere with clearness, especially if antithesis he used, so as to show the connection between the different parts of the sentence, e.g. "A modern newspaper statement, though probably true, would be laughed at if quoted in a book as testimony; but the letter of a court gossip is thought good historical evidence if written some centuries ago." Here, to place "though probably true" at the beginning of the sentence would not add clearness, and would impair the emphasis of the contrast between "a modern newspaper statement" and "the letter of a court gossip."
*27. In conditional sentences, the antecedent clauses must be kept distinct from the consequent clauses.*-There is ambiguity in "The lesson intended to be taught by these manoeuvres will be lost, if the plan of operations is laid down too definitely beforehand, and the affair degenerates into a mere review." Begin, in any case, with the antecedent, "If the plan," &c. Next write, according to the meaning: (1) "If the plan is laid down, and the affair degenerates &c., then the lesson will be lost;" or (2) " ... then the lesson ... will be lost, and the affair degenerates into a mere review."