Question regarding difference between "Only" and "The only"

Comments

• 1 Like

  MikeyMangood Alum Member

  February 2016 edited February 2016 100 karma

  I think the issue with your "the only" is that it's missing elements, at least with the example you provided with "The only human being can have souls." If it said, "The only human beings who can have souls are X(whatever modifier you want)." it would translate into HB ---> X. Or "the only" can be used like this:
  "X's are the only human beings who can have souls", which is still HB---->X.
  
  The 7Sage lesson on this tells it much better:
  For the first example:
  
  The only X's (insert modifiers) are the Y's (insert modifiers).
  In this form, the Y's must call back, point back, refer back to the X's.
  The translation is X-->Y
  
  And for the second:
  
  Y's (insert modifier) are the only X's (insert modifier).
  In this form, the X's must call back, point back, refer back to the Y's.
  The translation is X-->Y
  
  Using the above examples with "only" (a group 2 necessary indicator), we would find:
  Human beings who can have souls are only X. HB ---> X
  and
  Only X are human beings who can have souls HB ---> X.
  
  If I'm mistaken, then please, dear God, someone help us both.
• tanes256 Alum Member

  February 2016 2573 karma

  Think of "the only" as no other exceptions. The only fast cars are red. That means that no other color car can be fast. No exceptions. Blue cars cannot be fast. Think of "only" as having plenty of exceptions. Only dogs are hairy. This means any kind of dog but no cats, squirrels, humans, etc. Just dogs. Any breed. Poodle, Lab, etc. Does that help?
• 4 Likes

  runiggyrun Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  February 2016 2481 karma

  S@davidkim1109
  The reason you are getting to a mistaken conditional is because your second phrase is not a complete sentence in English.
  Your first one is correct:
  Only human beings can have souls = Have souls -> Human beings
  The second one is incomplete: The only human beings can have souls doesn't mean anything in English. The examples can be logically nonsensical (only purple cats can fly), but they have to be grammatically feasible sentences.
  You can re-write the second sentence two ways:
  The only [human beings with souls] are [Republicans]. (I said it can be logically nonsensical
  human being with soul-->Republican
  or
  The only [things with souls] are [human beings]
  Thing with soul-->human being
  or more simply soul-->human being
  
  @MikeyMangood - you are making the mistake of not taking into account the modifier.
  Your first example "The only human beings who can have souls are X(whatever modifier you want)." does not translate into [HB]-->[X] but rather into [HB with souls] -->[X].
  You make the same mistake in all the examples, where you add the modifier in the English sentence but leave it out in the lawgic
  The only X's (insert modifiers) are the Y's
  Does not translate to X-->Y
  Does translate to X+modifier -->Y
  Example for human beings is above in the answer to the original question.
  Additional example:
  The only cats that bring bad luck are black (that bring bad luck is a modifier of cat)
  Incorrect cat-->black (leaves out the modifier)
  Correct cat+brings bad luck -->black
  Similarly for only phrases:
  Only X (insert modifier) are Y
  Does not mean X-->Y
  Does mean X+modifier-->Y
  Both your examples:
  Human beings who can have souls are only X. (who can have souls is a modifier of human being)
  and
  Only X are human beings who can have souls
  Do not translate to HB-->X
  Do translate to HB+soul -->X
  Enter the cats:
  Only black cats bring bad luck. (Black is the modifier of cat)
  Incorrect: bad luck-->cat
  Correct bad luck -->Black cat
  
  Might be worth going through JY's lesson and drills again if it still doesn't make sense.
  
• MikeyMangood Alum Member

  February 2016 100 karma

  @runniggyrun thanks for helping to clarify that for everyone. My use of X(insert modifier) was supposed to come across as X+x's modifier-->, not just X alone. Likewise for the other examples. Regardless, this is a mistake in clarity, which can be just as devastating. Thanks for reminding me of that.
• 1 Like

  runiggyrun Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  February 2016 2481 karma

  Mikey, I do that all the time - so many things that are clear in my head and not quite what I meant when put down on paper....
• MrSamIam Inactive ⭐

  February 2016 2086 karma

  I find that coming up with your own example, and explaining it to yourself typically helps you understand confusing concepts.
  I believe J.Y. uses these in some of his videos - don't quote me on that
  
  Only: Only those who took the LSAT are in law school.
  Does this mean that if I took the LSAT, I am in law school? It means that if you see me in law school, I must have taken the LSAT. (LS --> LSAT)
  
  The only: The only way to get into law school is to take the LSAT.
  So I know that if someone is in law school, then they took the LSAT. Why? Because the only way to get in, is to take the LSAT. Taking the LSAT is necessary for getting into law school. If there's only one way to get in, and that one way involves taking the LSAT, than a student in law school must have taken the LSAT. (GILS --> LSAT)
• 1 Like

  NotoriousD_Kim Member

  February 2016 edited February 2016 17 karma

  Thanks for all your help!
  
  Just adding onto @tanes256 's input, if I understand it correctly, "the only" ALWAYS has to be supported by a modifier because I'm assuming "the" implies a specific subset of that group, whereas "only" does not have to necessarily, because it is all inclusive with all kinds of exceptions. So the example, "the only fast cars are red" can be translated into "the only cars that are fast are red", which in turn is equivalent to "only red cars are fast".