Word Placement in Non-English Languages

[qwed117]

Note that it was only used in religious texts after 2400 BK
Note that it was used only in religious texts after 2400 BK

I was noticing how these phrases have unclear yet distinct meanings (in colloqium)despite the only difference being that the adverb and verb were switched.

Do other systems have the same distinction? Can you please provide languages and a gloss and whatnot.

[Thrice Xandvii]

I'm not seeing a distinction betwixt those examples. They mean the same thing to me... as such, your question confuses me.

[qwed117]

I'm not seeing a distinction betwixt those examples. They mean the same thing to me... as such, your question confuses me.

Note that it was only used in religious texts after 2400 BK (Carries the meaning that religious texts started to use it after 2400 BK)
Note that it was used only in religious texts after 2400 BK (Carries the meaning that it went extinct non-liturgically after 2400 BK)

I was using this phrase in the Teles-World Project

[clawgrip]

Frankly, I think both sentences could potentially carry either meaning.

[eldin raigmore]

I'm not seeing a distinction betwixt those examples. They mean the same thing to me... as such, your question confuses me.

Note that it was only used in religious texts after 2400 BK (Carries the meaning that religious texts started to use it after 2400 BK)
Note that it was used only in religious texts after 2400 BK (Carries the meaning that it went extinct non-liturgically after 2400 BK)

I was using this phrase in the Teles-World Project

I agree with qwed.

[Dormouse559]

Frankly, I think both sentences could potentially carry either meaning.

I think the first sentence could have both meanings, but not the second.

EDIT: Looking at the second again, I can sort of see the other reading, but it requires a somewhat more specialized meaning for "after".

[zyma]

I'm not seeing a distinction betwixt those examples. They mean the same thing to me... as such, your question confuses me.

Note that it was only used in religious texts after 2400 BK (Carries the meaning that religious texts started to use it after 2400 BK)
Note that it was used only in religious texts after 2400 BK (Carries the meaning that it went extinct non-liturgically after 2400 BK)

I was using this phrase in the Teles-World Project

I agree with qwed.

Me too, although I can't say I completely agree that the meanings of the two phrases are entirely clear and distinct. I would have said they meant the same thing if I hadn't been prompted to give it a little more thought.

I agree that one sentence means one thing and the other means something else, but that difference wasn't obvious to me at the beginning.

[Thrice Xandvii]

I think it was the usage of the words "clear and distinct" that made me think that I must be missing some really really obvious thing that made the meanings markedly different (they aren't, to me at least). Even in the re-worded renderings that qwed used above, I see very little practical difference. (I made some substitutions in the below that don't change the meaning, so far as I can tell, but may make it easier to refer to if this discussion should go on.)

1) [The script] was only used in religious texts after [the Bronze Age].
2) [The script] was used only in religious texts after [the Bronze Age].

3) Religious texts started to use it after [the Bronze Age].
4) [The script] went extinct non-liturgically after [the Bronze Age].

I still don't see how one can be read as only one of the meanings qwed proposed... but not also the other ones. I mean, it seems like proposing that "the fire burned me" is different from "the fire's heat burned me", I know that that example isn't the same, but the end result is the same in either case.

I don't see how the first sentence implies that the script first began to be used after that point, I don't see that sentence indicating a start point, necessarily, in any way. It merely states that religious texts were the only place that it appeared. In fact, it could be the case that the script was used elsewhere AND in religious texts concurrently, but then it ceased to be used outside of religious texts after that Age (as qwed's sentence 4 indicates). Likewise, the second sentence could well carry that same meaning.

[eldin raigmore]

Let's try:

1. Only the script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
2. The only script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
3. The script only was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
4. The script was only used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
5. The script was used only in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
6. The script was used in only religious texts after the Bronze Age.
7. The script was used in religious only texts after the Bronze Age.
8. The script was used in religious texts only after the Bronze Age.
9. The script was used in religious texts after only the Bronze Age.
10. The script was used in religious texts after the only Bronze Age.
11. The script was used in religious texts after the Bronze only Age.
12. The script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age only.

Which of those, to you, are grammatical, and which ungrammatical?
Which are "felicitous", pragmatically speaking, and which "infelicitous"?
Which are ambiguous and which unambiguous?

To me 1 looks grammatical and felicitous, assuming there was something else to the language that could have been used in religious texts before the Bronze Age (unlikely IMO since what kinds of texts could there have been before the Bronze Age?), or maybe during the Bronze Age.
To m 2 looks grammatical, if the "only" is appositive; it reminds us that there was only one script, and tells us that it was used in religious texts (and possibly other texts) after the Bronze Age (and possibly during and/or before).
To me 3 is grammatical and felicitous but ambiguous; it could mean what 2 means, or it could mean what 4 means.
To me 4 is also grammatical and felicitous, but avoidably ambiguous; it could mean what 5 means, or it could mean what 8 means.
To me 5 is grammatical and felicitous and unambiguous; it says that, after the Bronze Age, the script was no longer used in secular texts (as it was during and/or before the Bronze Age).
To me 6 is ungrammatical and nonsensical.
To me 7 is worse than 3 or 4; it is hard to interpret and is probably ungrammatical, or at least nearly so.
To me 8 is grammatical and felicitous and unambiguous. It says that during and before the Bronze Age, religious texts did not use this script; it started appearing in religious texts only after the Bronze Age ended.
To me 9 is grammatical, but probably infelicitous; maybe it means that certain other uses of the script had to wait until after the Iron Age or something, but as soon as the Bronze Age was over religious texts started using the script.
To me 10 is grammatical, and unambiguous, but infelicitous; it includes the unnecessary information that there was only one Bronze Age.
To me 11 is ungrammatical and nonsensical.
To me 12 is grammatical, and probably felicitous, but maximally ambiguous; it could mean what any of the other grammatical felicitous versions could mean.

What say you?

---

I might have misunderstood or incompletely understood qwed when I said "I agree with qwed".
Or I could have just been wrong; maybe I don't agree with qwed.

[Thrice Xandvii]

I think... that the more permutations of that sentence I read, the more my head hurts.

It looks like I agree with most of your interpretations, Eldin, of the various versions of the sentence(s). I think I can parse a meaning from 6, however: the script may have been used in lots of types of texts, but once the Bronze Age hit, it was only used in the religious texts. It is certainly worded a bit oddly, though.

The most salient point, to me, with respect to this discussion, is the fact that #4 overlaps with #5, and that, in fact, means that the original sentences are not discrete and different ONLY by moving the "only" to a position before or after the verb.

(Maybe some sort of chart would help me to visualize this...)

[qwed117]

Let's try:

1. Only the script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
2. The only script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
3. The script only was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
4. The script was only used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
5. The script was used only in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
6. The script was used in only religious texts after the Bronze Age.
7. The script was used in religious only texts after the Bronze Age.
8. The script was used in religious texts only after the Bronze Age.
9. The script was used in religious texts after only the Bronze Age.
10. The script was used in religious texts after the only Bronze Age.
11. The script was used in religious texts after the Bronze only Age.
12. The script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age only.

Which of those, to you, are grammatical, and which ungrammatical?
Which are "felicitous", pragmatically speaking, and which "infelicitous"?
Which are ambiguous and which unambiguous?

To me 1 looks grammatical and felicitous, assuming there was something else to the language that could have been used in religious texts before the Bronze Age (unlikely IMO since what kinds of texts could there have been before the Bronze Age?), or maybe during the Bronze Age.
To m 2 looks grammatical, if the "only" is appositive; it reminds us that there was only one script, and tells us that it was used in religious texts (and possibly other texts) after the Bronze Age (and possibly during and/or before).
To me 3 is grammatical and felicitous but ambiguous; it could mean what 2 means, or it could mean what 4 means.
To me 4 is also grammatical and felicitous, but avoidably ambiguous; it could mean what 5 means, or it could mean what 8 means.
To me 5 is grammatical and felicitous and unambiguous; it says that, after the Bronze Age, the script was no longer used in secular texts (as it was during and/or before the Bronze Age).
To me 6 is ungrammatical and nonsensical.
To me 7 is worse than 3 or 4; it is hard to interpret and is probably ungrammatical, or at least nearly so.
To me 8 is grammatical and felicitous and unambiguous. It says that during and before the Bronze Age, religious texts did not use this script; it started appearing in religious texts only after the Bronze Age ended.
To me 9 is grammatical, but probably infelicitous; maybe it means that certain other uses of the script had to wait until after the Iron Age or something, but as soon as the Bronze Age was over religious texts started using the script.
To me 10 is grammatical, and unambiguous, but infelicitous; it includes the unnecessary information that there was only one Bronze Age.
To me 11 is ungrammatical and nonsensical.
To me 12 is grammatical, and probably felicitous, but maximally ambiguous; it could mean what any of the other grammatical felicitous versions could mean.

What say you?

---

I might have misunderstood or incompletely understood qwed when I said "I agree with qwed".
Or I could have just been wrong; maybe I don't agree with qwed.

Umm, now that we are talking about all possible permutations, when you look at #1
Only the script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
Suggests that the script, but not something else in context (like maybe the language) was used after the Bronze Age
Only, the script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
Suggests that there is a contradiction between data.

Number 2 suggests that Only is the name of the script or else the sentence becomes ungrammatical (because it requires the appositive).
I'm not going to go in full details, but each has a semidistinct meaning

[Salmoneus]

...seriously, we're arguing about this now?

In standard English, the two original sentences are completely different in meaning and largely unambiguous (though colloquially the first sentence might sometimes be used in place of the second; the second really is unambiguous). They can be parsed very simply just by applying basic normal scope rules.

Note that it was [only [used in religious texts] after 2400 BK]
Note that it was used [only [in religious texts]] after 2400 BK

This is hardly a miniscule difference, since in the first example it was not used in religious texts before 2400BK, while in the second it probably was, while in the first it probably was used in non-religious texts after 2400 BK while in the second it wasn't. I.e. the two sentences are opposites.


Now, should we have an argument over whether a double negative is a positive (again, in standard english)?

[qwed117]

^^See what I'm talking about
(And strictly speaking, they are inverses)

[Thrice Xandvii]

I love when Sal pokes into a conversation and pretends he magically has the last word just because he says things more authoritatively and condescendingly.


(Not that I'm saying he's wrong, per se... Just that it seems rude and presumptuous to act that way.)

[clawgrip]

I kind of didn't pay enough attention when I made my first post. The second sentence seems unambiguous, but the first one is. Salmoneous claims that in "standard English" (whatever that is) it's unambiguous, and then admits that "colloquially" it may be ambiguous. This seems like a lot of rug sweeping here. The first sentence is indeed ambiguous. If we retain the word order but add some context, we can easily alter the meaning significantly:

Note that it was only used in religious texts after 2400 BK

a. This word had already become common in popular literature and even government documents since at least 2300 BK, but it was only used in religious texts after 2400 BK.
b. This word had all but disappeared from the common speech and writing by the second half of the 24th century BK, and it was only used in religious texts after 2400 BK.

Sure you can dispute that one or the other is stylistically displeasing to you, but it is hardly "largely unambiguous"; the meaning of each sentence I think is fairly clear.

[Thrice Xandvii]

[...] the meaning of each sentence I think is fairly clear.

Just to be absolutely clear, I assume you are referring to your sentences 'a' and 'b,' not the original sentences I later called '1' and '2,' right?

[clawgrip]

Right, a. and b. I think they have different meanings, and I think it is clear what those meanings are.

[Prinsessa]

The first one can carry both meanings depending on how stressed the word only is, and I'm pretty sure that's "standard English" as well. It's unambiguous in speech but not in text. Stress is important!

[Trebor]

The OP raised an interesting issue. I'd like to suggest that the following pair of sentences might more clearly illustrate the phenomenon in view.

(1) He doesn't really like getting up at five in the morning every day.

(2) He really doesn't like getting up at five in the morning every day.

It would be interesting to find out how natlangs, IE and non-IE, handle these sentences.

Edit: Minor editorial revisions.

[gestaltist]

Interesting. I have been thinking how these sentences would be rendered in my native tongue (Polish):

<Skryptu używano w pismach religijnych po Epoce Brązu.>
script-GEN was_used in text-PL-LOC religious-PL-LOC after age-SG-LOC bronze-SG-GEN.

+ <tylko> = only

The grammatically correct ones would be:

1. Tylko skryptu używano w pismach religijnych po Epoce Brązu.
2. Skryptu tylko używano w pismach religijnych po Epoce Brązu.
3. Skryptu używano tylko w pismach religijnych po Epoce Brązu.
4. Skryptu używano w pismach religijnych tylko po Epoce Brązu.

1 means: The script (and nothing else) was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age.
2 means: The script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age, but no other action was applied to it in those texts. (Rather nonsensical in this specific example, as there is nothing else you can do with a script in a text than use it.)
3 means: The script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age and nowhere else. It is somewhat ambiguous, as it could both mean that it was used outside of religious texts before that, but it could also mean it wasn’t in use before the Bronze Age at all.
4 means: The script was used in religious texts only after the Bronze Age. Same as English.

In Polish, we also have the word <dopiero> which also means „only“ but with a hint of temporality and exclusivity. I don’t know how to render this in English, to be honest.) Lets check out what this word does to to the sentences:

1. Dopiero skryptu używano w pismach religijnych po Epoce Brązu.
2. Skryptu dopiero używano w pismach religijnych po Epoce Brązu.
3. Skryptu używano dopiero w pismach religijnych po Epoce Brązu.
4. Skryptu używano w pismach religijnych dopiero po Epoce Brązu.

1: There was an array of different means of communication (that would have to have been mentioned), and the script was the first one of them to be used in the religious texts after the Bronze Age.
2: It would mean something like: The script was used in religious texts after the Bronze Age, but something more happened to it after that (in religious texts). Pretty nonsensical in this context.
3. The script was used in religious scripts after the Bronze Age, and it was never used before that.
4. The script was used in religious texts only after the Bronze Age. - <dopiero> and <tylko> are synonymous in this position.

Some takeaways from this:
- there is much less ambiguity than in English, due to narrower scoping (in general, only the word after <tylko> or <dopiero> is being modified in meaning)
- there are less grammatically correct possibilities than in English (which surprised me, as Polish has much laxer sentence order in general)
- „only“ is a very broad word that can mean different things, as shown by the fact that Polish has multiple words for it (as does English: consider „solely“, „exclusively“, etc.)