Mea Culpa: how the lonely onlys might get lost

S

imon Kelner, the editor of The Independent from 1998 to 2008, was a stickler for the placing of “only”. He and I got on well, and often the only changes he would make to leading articles I drafted for him would be to move an only and delete a comma. (One of his other common complaints was that someone had got out the “comma jar” and sprinkled some over the copy.)

English is such a flexible language that it does not usually matter if an “only” finds itself detached from the word or phrase to which it applies: the meaning remains clear. But John Armitage drew my attention to a case last week where a misplaced “only” created an ambiguity. In an article about sexual harassment in private schools, we said that a debating prize “has been won by a fee-paying school on 41 occasions, 29 of which by schools that only admitted boys at the time of victory”.

I think most readers would have gained the intended meaning without a glitch, because they would be expecting the article to mention boys-only schools, but Simon Kelner, John Armitage and I might hesitate over the implication that the schools didn’t admit boys before their victory. Ideally, it should have been “schools that admitted only boys”.

More Stories
Boris Johnson’s statement on the death of Prince Philip death – in full