I only saw John

[navi]

1) I only saw John.

To me, that sentence is ambiguous. It might mean:

a) Seeing John was all I did with respect to John. I didn't do anything
to him. I just saw him.

or:

b) John was the only person (or thing) I saw.

For 'b', I use

2) I saw only John.

But I think people use '1' instead of '2'.
Am I correct?
Do you find that usage acceptable?

--
Gratefully,
Navi


Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Obsessed with ambiguity
Interested in strange structures

[Hibou]

Post by navi
1) I only saw John.
a) Seeing John was all I did with respect to John. I didn't do anything
to him. I just saw him.
b) John was the only person (or thing) I saw.
For 'b', I use
2) I saw only John.
But I think people use '1' instead of '2'.
Am I correct?

Yes. People often put their onlys in the wrong place.

Post by navi
Do you find that usage acceptable?

Personally, I dislike it. Pensée claire, paroles claires.

[Phil]

Post by navi
1) I only saw John.
a) Seeing John was all I did with respect to John. I didn't do anything
to him. I just saw him.
b) John was the only person (or thing) I saw.
For 'b', I use
2) I saw only John.
But I think people use '1' instead of '2'.
Am I correct?
Do you find that usage acceptable?
--
Gratefully,
Navi
Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Obsessed with ambiguity
Interested in strange structures

You are correct. When (2) is what is meant, (1) is sloppy.

Form (1) is also used informally (in BrE at least) to express
exasperation or surprise at a course of action:

'He's only gone and told John'

where telling John is regarded as foolish.