I wonder which one is correct:
- three only apples
- only three apples
If "only three apples" is correct, which does "only" modify? Does it modify "three" or "three apples"? Why?
English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Although the combination "three only" can be grammatical, "three only apples" is ungrammatical.
Here it is not clear whether "only" refers to "three" or "three apples"; the context can reveal the intended meaning.
The meaning could be that "there are not any more apples than three":
How many apples are left?
Only three apples!
Or the meaning could be "the only objects present are three apples":
What fruits do you see on the table?
Only three apples.
In the first example, the number is important. In the second example, it is just an observation that there is no other fruit on the table besides three apples; there is no idea of regret that there aren't four or five apples. The speaker could just have answered "Only apples." but chose to volunteer the extra information that there are three.
If we want the second meaning without ambiguity, we cannot achieve it by moving the word "only" between "three" and "apples". Only context makes it clear, or a change of wording which avoids "only":
no more than three apples
nothing else but three apples
When "only" function as a quantifier, it is not compatible with another quanitifier, so "three only apples" is either ungrammatical, or requires us to regard "only" as an adjective: that there are three apples, and they are of the type "only apple". This is semantic nonsense: "an only apple" isn't a concept. However, "an only child" is a concept. So it is conceivable to have "three only children": For instance:
The psychologist interviewed three only children.
But note that this does not mean that the psychologist interviewed no more than three children, and it does not mean that the psychologist interviewed no other people except three children! Here, the word only identifies a type of child, and does not serve as a quantifying or limiting type of word which would be incompatible with "three". It means that the psychologist interviewed three children who have no siblings.