Placing an adverb between a verb and an object?












3















The rule: "We don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" (Cambridge Dictionary)



But some sentences confuse me :




1-He drew only a rabbit. (All he drew was a rabbit but he might have done other things while drawing like listening to music)



2-He read only the end of the book. (All he read was the end of the book)




1'-He only drew a rabbit. (All he did was drawing a rabbit)



2'-He only read the end of the book. (All he did was reading the end of the book)





I think (1 and 1') + (2 and 2') are not the same. So are (1 and 2) grammatically correct ? That means rule is not always true ?










share|improve this question

























  • In 1' and 2', you've written "only" twice. I think you forgot to delete the second instance in each case.

    – hguler
    4 hours ago











  • Yeah thank you.

    – Talha Özden
    4 hours ago











  • Related on our sister site: Correct position of "only".

    – Robusto
    4 hours ago
















3















The rule: "We don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" (Cambridge Dictionary)



But some sentences confuse me :




1-He drew only a rabbit. (All he drew was a rabbit but he might have done other things while drawing like listening to music)



2-He read only the end of the book. (All he read was the end of the book)




1'-He only drew a rabbit. (All he did was drawing a rabbit)



2'-He only read the end of the book. (All he did was reading the end of the book)





I think (1 and 1') + (2 and 2') are not the same. So are (1 and 2) grammatically correct ? That means rule is not always true ?










share|improve this question

























  • In 1' and 2', you've written "only" twice. I think you forgot to delete the second instance in each case.

    – hguler
    4 hours ago











  • Yeah thank you.

    – Talha Özden
    4 hours ago











  • Related on our sister site: Correct position of "only".

    – Robusto
    4 hours ago














3












3








3








The rule: "We don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" (Cambridge Dictionary)



But some sentences confuse me :




1-He drew only a rabbit. (All he drew was a rabbit but he might have done other things while drawing like listening to music)



2-He read only the end of the book. (All he read was the end of the book)




1'-He only drew a rabbit. (All he did was drawing a rabbit)



2'-He only read the end of the book. (All he did was reading the end of the book)





I think (1 and 1') + (2 and 2') are not the same. So are (1 and 2) grammatically correct ? That means rule is not always true ?










share|improve this question
















The rule: "We don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" (Cambridge Dictionary)



But some sentences confuse me :




1-He drew only a rabbit. (All he drew was a rabbit but he might have done other things while drawing like listening to music)



2-He read only the end of the book. (All he read was the end of the book)




1'-He only drew a rabbit. (All he did was drawing a rabbit)



2'-He only read the end of the book. (All he did was reading the end of the book)





I think (1 and 1') + (2 and 2') are not the same. So are (1 and 2) grammatically correct ? That means rule is not always true ?







adverb-placement






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago







Talha Özden

















asked 5 hours ago









Talha ÖzdenTalha Özden

14616




14616













  • In 1' and 2', you've written "only" twice. I think you forgot to delete the second instance in each case.

    – hguler
    4 hours ago











  • Yeah thank you.

    – Talha Özden
    4 hours ago











  • Related on our sister site: Correct position of "only".

    – Robusto
    4 hours ago



















  • In 1' and 2', you've written "only" twice. I think you forgot to delete the second instance in each case.

    – hguler
    4 hours ago











  • Yeah thank you.

    – Talha Özden
    4 hours ago











  • Related on our sister site: Correct position of "only".

    – Robusto
    4 hours ago

















In 1' and 2', you've written "only" twice. I think you forgot to delete the second instance in each case.

– hguler
4 hours ago





In 1' and 2', you've written "only" twice. I think you forgot to delete the second instance in each case.

– hguler
4 hours ago













Yeah thank you.

– Talha Özden
4 hours ago





Yeah thank you.

– Talha Özden
4 hours ago













Related on our sister site: Correct position of "only".

– Robusto
4 hours ago





Related on our sister site: Correct position of "only".

– Robusto
4 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















4














To paraphrase "Pirates of the Caribbean", think of this more as a guideline than an actual rule. With creative writing, it is often possible to place the adverb anywhere it sounds good.



Because this is an uncommon placement, When done properly, it can sound dramatic.




They flung wide the doors of the hall, letting sunlight stream into every dark corner.




Done poorly, or in an odd context, it just sounds awkward, e.g. "She ate greedily the cake."



In the future, if you see this kind of sentence structure (and you trust the writer is doing it on purpose) take note of the context, and recognize that the sentence might feel different from the usual phrasing.






share|improve this answer
























  • "wide" is not an adverb. It's an adjective. It describes the state of the object after the verb was performed, much like "The drill instructor ran the recruits ragged" or "They arrived late".

    – Acccumulation
    2 hours ago











  • @Acccumulation You may be right, but my example sentence seems much in line with Oxford adverb definition 1, "To the fullest extent" which would seem to modify "flung" not "doors". But I could always use a different example of the same thing, e.g. "She opened wide her eyes and gazed at the radiant vista before her."

    – Andrew
    1 hour ago



















2














[I had already written most of this before @Andrew posted his answer. It says pretty much the same thing, but I thought I might as well post it, having written it.]



"Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" is more general advice, probably particularly useful for English language learners, rather than a hard and fast rule.



It definitely is possible to put an adverb between the verb and the object, and often it will sound just fine to an English-speaking ear.




I sang loudly to the audience.



She ran quickly to the bus stop.




The two examples you cite sound fine to me, even if placing the adverb before the verb would sound more 'normal'.



However, it depends on the words being used. As @Andrew says in his answer, it can even be a deliberate choice for literary effect.



As to why some phrases sound complete bizarre, and others sound perfectly ok, I am really not sure.



Eg:




He played brilliantly the piano




sounds completely wrong and would never be said by a native speaker.



Somebody else might be able to explain why.






share|improve this answer
























  • Could it be because your first two examples have an indirect object, whereas the last one has a direct object? Perhaps the preposition "to" makes the object "long and complicated," so that putting the adverb before the object becomes acceptable. Note that "I sang loudly the song" and "She ran slowly the marathon" are no better than "He played brilliantly the piano."

    – hguler
    4 hours ago











  • You're right. That seems to be correct.

    – fred2
    4 hours ago











  • 'to the audience' and 'to the bus stop' are not objects at all, but prepositional phrases acting as an adjunct, so adverbs can be used before them relatively freely. Adverbs of manner (which usually end -ly) can rarely be used before a direct object (He played brilliantly the piano). 'They flung wide/open the doors' sounds acceptable partly because we would never say 'They flung the doors' (I'm not sure why),

    – Sydney
    4 hours ago











  • It's still an object, isn't it? It just so happens that the object is a prepositional phrase? You are quite right that that's why it sounds ok, but it only goes to show that, as 'rules' go, this one is pretty useless. "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object, unless the object is a prepositional phrase, or one of a number of other exceptions, or it's a long and complicated sentence".

    – fred2
    3 hours ago



















1














The rule you've quoted is not always followed. See this discussion, in which it is pointed out that the adverb can go between the verb and the object when the object is long or complicated.



Note, however, that there isn't necessarily a difference in meaning between 1 and 1' and between 2 and 2'. Drawing a rabbit is a little unusual, so let's take the example of eating an apple. "I only ate an apple" means "I ate an apple and nothing else." In contrast, "I ate only an apple" is correct but slightly awkward. In spoken English, you could put an emphasis on the word "ate" to indicate that "only" is modifying "apple" and not "ate", as in:




I only ate an apple.




but in written English (and in spoken English when the word "ate" is not emphasized),




I only ate an apple.




means you ate an apple and nothing else.



If you want to say that you did nothing more than eat an apple, "I merely ate an apple", or "I did nothing more than eat an apple," or, as you suggested, "All I did was eat an apple," would be better ways to indicate that. (The last way is the most natural.)






share|improve this answer










New contributor




hguler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "481"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f198700%2fplacing-an-adverb-between-a-verb-and-an-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4














    To paraphrase "Pirates of the Caribbean", think of this more as a guideline than an actual rule. With creative writing, it is often possible to place the adverb anywhere it sounds good.



    Because this is an uncommon placement, When done properly, it can sound dramatic.




    They flung wide the doors of the hall, letting sunlight stream into every dark corner.




    Done poorly, or in an odd context, it just sounds awkward, e.g. "She ate greedily the cake."



    In the future, if you see this kind of sentence structure (and you trust the writer is doing it on purpose) take note of the context, and recognize that the sentence might feel different from the usual phrasing.






    share|improve this answer
























    • "wide" is not an adverb. It's an adjective. It describes the state of the object after the verb was performed, much like "The drill instructor ran the recruits ragged" or "They arrived late".

      – Acccumulation
      2 hours ago











    • @Acccumulation You may be right, but my example sentence seems much in line with Oxford adverb definition 1, "To the fullest extent" which would seem to modify "flung" not "doors". But I could always use a different example of the same thing, e.g. "She opened wide her eyes and gazed at the radiant vista before her."

      – Andrew
      1 hour ago
















    4














    To paraphrase "Pirates of the Caribbean", think of this more as a guideline than an actual rule. With creative writing, it is often possible to place the adverb anywhere it sounds good.



    Because this is an uncommon placement, When done properly, it can sound dramatic.




    They flung wide the doors of the hall, letting sunlight stream into every dark corner.




    Done poorly, or in an odd context, it just sounds awkward, e.g. "She ate greedily the cake."



    In the future, if you see this kind of sentence structure (and you trust the writer is doing it on purpose) take note of the context, and recognize that the sentence might feel different from the usual phrasing.






    share|improve this answer
























    • "wide" is not an adverb. It's an adjective. It describes the state of the object after the verb was performed, much like "The drill instructor ran the recruits ragged" or "They arrived late".

      – Acccumulation
      2 hours ago











    • @Acccumulation You may be right, but my example sentence seems much in line with Oxford adverb definition 1, "To the fullest extent" which would seem to modify "flung" not "doors". But I could always use a different example of the same thing, e.g. "She opened wide her eyes and gazed at the radiant vista before her."

      – Andrew
      1 hour ago














    4












    4








    4







    To paraphrase "Pirates of the Caribbean", think of this more as a guideline than an actual rule. With creative writing, it is often possible to place the adverb anywhere it sounds good.



    Because this is an uncommon placement, When done properly, it can sound dramatic.




    They flung wide the doors of the hall, letting sunlight stream into every dark corner.




    Done poorly, or in an odd context, it just sounds awkward, e.g. "She ate greedily the cake."



    In the future, if you see this kind of sentence structure (and you trust the writer is doing it on purpose) take note of the context, and recognize that the sentence might feel different from the usual phrasing.






    share|improve this answer













    To paraphrase "Pirates of the Caribbean", think of this more as a guideline than an actual rule. With creative writing, it is often possible to place the adverb anywhere it sounds good.



    Because this is an uncommon placement, When done properly, it can sound dramatic.




    They flung wide the doors of the hall, letting sunlight stream into every dark corner.




    Done poorly, or in an odd context, it just sounds awkward, e.g. "She ate greedily the cake."



    In the future, if you see this kind of sentence structure (and you trust the writer is doing it on purpose) take note of the context, and recognize that the sentence might feel different from the usual phrasing.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 4 hours ago









    AndrewAndrew

    69k678153




    69k678153













    • "wide" is not an adverb. It's an adjective. It describes the state of the object after the verb was performed, much like "The drill instructor ran the recruits ragged" or "They arrived late".

      – Acccumulation
      2 hours ago











    • @Acccumulation You may be right, but my example sentence seems much in line with Oxford adverb definition 1, "To the fullest extent" which would seem to modify "flung" not "doors". But I could always use a different example of the same thing, e.g. "She opened wide her eyes and gazed at the radiant vista before her."

      – Andrew
      1 hour ago



















    • "wide" is not an adverb. It's an adjective. It describes the state of the object after the verb was performed, much like "The drill instructor ran the recruits ragged" or "They arrived late".

      – Acccumulation
      2 hours ago











    • @Acccumulation You may be right, but my example sentence seems much in line with Oxford adverb definition 1, "To the fullest extent" which would seem to modify "flung" not "doors". But I could always use a different example of the same thing, e.g. "She opened wide her eyes and gazed at the radiant vista before her."

      – Andrew
      1 hour ago

















    "wide" is not an adverb. It's an adjective. It describes the state of the object after the verb was performed, much like "The drill instructor ran the recruits ragged" or "They arrived late".

    – Acccumulation
    2 hours ago





    "wide" is not an adverb. It's an adjective. It describes the state of the object after the verb was performed, much like "The drill instructor ran the recruits ragged" or "They arrived late".

    – Acccumulation
    2 hours ago













    @Acccumulation You may be right, but my example sentence seems much in line with Oxford adverb definition 1, "To the fullest extent" which would seem to modify "flung" not "doors". But I could always use a different example of the same thing, e.g. "She opened wide her eyes and gazed at the radiant vista before her."

    – Andrew
    1 hour ago





    @Acccumulation You may be right, but my example sentence seems much in line with Oxford adverb definition 1, "To the fullest extent" which would seem to modify "flung" not "doors". But I could always use a different example of the same thing, e.g. "She opened wide her eyes and gazed at the radiant vista before her."

    – Andrew
    1 hour ago













    2














    [I had already written most of this before @Andrew posted his answer. It says pretty much the same thing, but I thought I might as well post it, having written it.]



    "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" is more general advice, probably particularly useful for English language learners, rather than a hard and fast rule.



    It definitely is possible to put an adverb between the verb and the object, and often it will sound just fine to an English-speaking ear.




    I sang loudly to the audience.



    She ran quickly to the bus stop.




    The two examples you cite sound fine to me, even if placing the adverb before the verb would sound more 'normal'.



    However, it depends on the words being used. As @Andrew says in his answer, it can even be a deliberate choice for literary effect.



    As to why some phrases sound complete bizarre, and others sound perfectly ok, I am really not sure.



    Eg:




    He played brilliantly the piano




    sounds completely wrong and would never be said by a native speaker.



    Somebody else might be able to explain why.






    share|improve this answer
























    • Could it be because your first two examples have an indirect object, whereas the last one has a direct object? Perhaps the preposition "to" makes the object "long and complicated," so that putting the adverb before the object becomes acceptable. Note that "I sang loudly the song" and "She ran slowly the marathon" are no better than "He played brilliantly the piano."

      – hguler
      4 hours ago











    • You're right. That seems to be correct.

      – fred2
      4 hours ago











    • 'to the audience' and 'to the bus stop' are not objects at all, but prepositional phrases acting as an adjunct, so adverbs can be used before them relatively freely. Adverbs of manner (which usually end -ly) can rarely be used before a direct object (He played brilliantly the piano). 'They flung wide/open the doors' sounds acceptable partly because we would never say 'They flung the doors' (I'm not sure why),

      – Sydney
      4 hours ago











    • It's still an object, isn't it? It just so happens that the object is a prepositional phrase? You are quite right that that's why it sounds ok, but it only goes to show that, as 'rules' go, this one is pretty useless. "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object, unless the object is a prepositional phrase, or one of a number of other exceptions, or it's a long and complicated sentence".

      – fred2
      3 hours ago
















    2














    [I had already written most of this before @Andrew posted his answer. It says pretty much the same thing, but I thought I might as well post it, having written it.]



    "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" is more general advice, probably particularly useful for English language learners, rather than a hard and fast rule.



    It definitely is possible to put an adverb between the verb and the object, and often it will sound just fine to an English-speaking ear.




    I sang loudly to the audience.



    She ran quickly to the bus stop.




    The two examples you cite sound fine to me, even if placing the adverb before the verb would sound more 'normal'.



    However, it depends on the words being used. As @Andrew says in his answer, it can even be a deliberate choice for literary effect.



    As to why some phrases sound complete bizarre, and others sound perfectly ok, I am really not sure.



    Eg:




    He played brilliantly the piano




    sounds completely wrong and would never be said by a native speaker.



    Somebody else might be able to explain why.






    share|improve this answer
























    • Could it be because your first two examples have an indirect object, whereas the last one has a direct object? Perhaps the preposition "to" makes the object "long and complicated," so that putting the adverb before the object becomes acceptable. Note that "I sang loudly the song" and "She ran slowly the marathon" are no better than "He played brilliantly the piano."

      – hguler
      4 hours ago











    • You're right. That seems to be correct.

      – fred2
      4 hours ago











    • 'to the audience' and 'to the bus stop' are not objects at all, but prepositional phrases acting as an adjunct, so adverbs can be used before them relatively freely. Adverbs of manner (which usually end -ly) can rarely be used before a direct object (He played brilliantly the piano). 'They flung wide/open the doors' sounds acceptable partly because we would never say 'They flung the doors' (I'm not sure why),

      – Sydney
      4 hours ago











    • It's still an object, isn't it? It just so happens that the object is a prepositional phrase? You are quite right that that's why it sounds ok, but it only goes to show that, as 'rules' go, this one is pretty useless. "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object, unless the object is a prepositional phrase, or one of a number of other exceptions, or it's a long and complicated sentence".

      – fred2
      3 hours ago














    2












    2








    2







    [I had already written most of this before @Andrew posted his answer. It says pretty much the same thing, but I thought I might as well post it, having written it.]



    "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" is more general advice, probably particularly useful for English language learners, rather than a hard and fast rule.



    It definitely is possible to put an adverb between the verb and the object, and often it will sound just fine to an English-speaking ear.




    I sang loudly to the audience.



    She ran quickly to the bus stop.




    The two examples you cite sound fine to me, even if placing the adverb before the verb would sound more 'normal'.



    However, it depends on the words being used. As @Andrew says in his answer, it can even be a deliberate choice for literary effect.



    As to why some phrases sound complete bizarre, and others sound perfectly ok, I am really not sure.



    Eg:




    He played brilliantly the piano




    sounds completely wrong and would never be said by a native speaker.



    Somebody else might be able to explain why.






    share|improve this answer













    [I had already written most of this before @Andrew posted his answer. It says pretty much the same thing, but I thought I might as well post it, having written it.]



    "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" is more general advice, probably particularly useful for English language learners, rather than a hard and fast rule.



    It definitely is possible to put an adverb between the verb and the object, and often it will sound just fine to an English-speaking ear.




    I sang loudly to the audience.



    She ran quickly to the bus stop.




    The two examples you cite sound fine to me, even if placing the adverb before the verb would sound more 'normal'.



    However, it depends on the words being used. As @Andrew says in his answer, it can even be a deliberate choice for literary effect.



    As to why some phrases sound complete bizarre, and others sound perfectly ok, I am really not sure.



    Eg:




    He played brilliantly the piano




    sounds completely wrong and would never be said by a native speaker.



    Somebody else might be able to explain why.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 4 hours ago









    fred2fred2

    1,820613




    1,820613













    • Could it be because your first two examples have an indirect object, whereas the last one has a direct object? Perhaps the preposition "to" makes the object "long and complicated," so that putting the adverb before the object becomes acceptable. Note that "I sang loudly the song" and "She ran slowly the marathon" are no better than "He played brilliantly the piano."

      – hguler
      4 hours ago











    • You're right. That seems to be correct.

      – fred2
      4 hours ago











    • 'to the audience' and 'to the bus stop' are not objects at all, but prepositional phrases acting as an adjunct, so adverbs can be used before them relatively freely. Adverbs of manner (which usually end -ly) can rarely be used before a direct object (He played brilliantly the piano). 'They flung wide/open the doors' sounds acceptable partly because we would never say 'They flung the doors' (I'm not sure why),

      – Sydney
      4 hours ago











    • It's still an object, isn't it? It just so happens that the object is a prepositional phrase? You are quite right that that's why it sounds ok, but it only goes to show that, as 'rules' go, this one is pretty useless. "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object, unless the object is a prepositional phrase, or one of a number of other exceptions, or it's a long and complicated sentence".

      – fred2
      3 hours ago



















    • Could it be because your first two examples have an indirect object, whereas the last one has a direct object? Perhaps the preposition "to" makes the object "long and complicated," so that putting the adverb before the object becomes acceptable. Note that "I sang loudly the song" and "She ran slowly the marathon" are no better than "He played brilliantly the piano."

      – hguler
      4 hours ago











    • You're right. That seems to be correct.

      – fred2
      4 hours ago











    • 'to the audience' and 'to the bus stop' are not objects at all, but prepositional phrases acting as an adjunct, so adverbs can be used before them relatively freely. Adverbs of manner (which usually end -ly) can rarely be used before a direct object (He played brilliantly the piano). 'They flung wide/open the doors' sounds acceptable partly because we would never say 'They flung the doors' (I'm not sure why),

      – Sydney
      4 hours ago











    • It's still an object, isn't it? It just so happens that the object is a prepositional phrase? You are quite right that that's why it sounds ok, but it only goes to show that, as 'rules' go, this one is pretty useless. "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object, unless the object is a prepositional phrase, or one of a number of other exceptions, or it's a long and complicated sentence".

      – fred2
      3 hours ago

















    Could it be because your first two examples have an indirect object, whereas the last one has a direct object? Perhaps the preposition "to" makes the object "long and complicated," so that putting the adverb before the object becomes acceptable. Note that "I sang loudly the song" and "She ran slowly the marathon" are no better than "He played brilliantly the piano."

    – hguler
    4 hours ago





    Could it be because your first two examples have an indirect object, whereas the last one has a direct object? Perhaps the preposition "to" makes the object "long and complicated," so that putting the adverb before the object becomes acceptable. Note that "I sang loudly the song" and "She ran slowly the marathon" are no better than "He played brilliantly the piano."

    – hguler
    4 hours ago













    You're right. That seems to be correct.

    – fred2
    4 hours ago





    You're right. That seems to be correct.

    – fred2
    4 hours ago













    'to the audience' and 'to the bus stop' are not objects at all, but prepositional phrases acting as an adjunct, so adverbs can be used before them relatively freely. Adverbs of manner (which usually end -ly) can rarely be used before a direct object (He played brilliantly the piano). 'They flung wide/open the doors' sounds acceptable partly because we would never say 'They flung the doors' (I'm not sure why),

    – Sydney
    4 hours ago





    'to the audience' and 'to the bus stop' are not objects at all, but prepositional phrases acting as an adjunct, so adverbs can be used before them relatively freely. Adverbs of manner (which usually end -ly) can rarely be used before a direct object (He played brilliantly the piano). 'They flung wide/open the doors' sounds acceptable partly because we would never say 'They flung the doors' (I'm not sure why),

    – Sydney
    4 hours ago













    It's still an object, isn't it? It just so happens that the object is a prepositional phrase? You are quite right that that's why it sounds ok, but it only goes to show that, as 'rules' go, this one is pretty useless. "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object, unless the object is a prepositional phrase, or one of a number of other exceptions, or it's a long and complicated sentence".

    – fred2
    3 hours ago





    It's still an object, isn't it? It just so happens that the object is a prepositional phrase? You are quite right that that's why it sounds ok, but it only goes to show that, as 'rules' go, this one is pretty useless. "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object, unless the object is a prepositional phrase, or one of a number of other exceptions, or it's a long and complicated sentence".

    – fred2
    3 hours ago











    1














    The rule you've quoted is not always followed. See this discussion, in which it is pointed out that the adverb can go between the verb and the object when the object is long or complicated.



    Note, however, that there isn't necessarily a difference in meaning between 1 and 1' and between 2 and 2'. Drawing a rabbit is a little unusual, so let's take the example of eating an apple. "I only ate an apple" means "I ate an apple and nothing else." In contrast, "I ate only an apple" is correct but slightly awkward. In spoken English, you could put an emphasis on the word "ate" to indicate that "only" is modifying "apple" and not "ate", as in:




    I only ate an apple.




    but in written English (and in spoken English when the word "ate" is not emphasized),




    I only ate an apple.




    means you ate an apple and nothing else.



    If you want to say that you did nothing more than eat an apple, "I merely ate an apple", or "I did nothing more than eat an apple," or, as you suggested, "All I did was eat an apple," would be better ways to indicate that. (The last way is the most natural.)






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    hguler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

























      1














      The rule you've quoted is not always followed. See this discussion, in which it is pointed out that the adverb can go between the verb and the object when the object is long or complicated.



      Note, however, that there isn't necessarily a difference in meaning between 1 and 1' and between 2 and 2'. Drawing a rabbit is a little unusual, so let's take the example of eating an apple. "I only ate an apple" means "I ate an apple and nothing else." In contrast, "I ate only an apple" is correct but slightly awkward. In spoken English, you could put an emphasis on the word "ate" to indicate that "only" is modifying "apple" and not "ate", as in:




      I only ate an apple.




      but in written English (and in spoken English when the word "ate" is not emphasized),




      I only ate an apple.




      means you ate an apple and nothing else.



      If you want to say that you did nothing more than eat an apple, "I merely ate an apple", or "I did nothing more than eat an apple," or, as you suggested, "All I did was eat an apple," would be better ways to indicate that. (The last way is the most natural.)






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      hguler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.























        1












        1








        1







        The rule you've quoted is not always followed. See this discussion, in which it is pointed out that the adverb can go between the verb and the object when the object is long or complicated.



        Note, however, that there isn't necessarily a difference in meaning between 1 and 1' and between 2 and 2'. Drawing a rabbit is a little unusual, so let's take the example of eating an apple. "I only ate an apple" means "I ate an apple and nothing else." In contrast, "I ate only an apple" is correct but slightly awkward. In spoken English, you could put an emphasis on the word "ate" to indicate that "only" is modifying "apple" and not "ate", as in:




        I only ate an apple.




        but in written English (and in spoken English when the word "ate" is not emphasized),




        I only ate an apple.




        means you ate an apple and nothing else.



        If you want to say that you did nothing more than eat an apple, "I merely ate an apple", or "I did nothing more than eat an apple," or, as you suggested, "All I did was eat an apple," would be better ways to indicate that. (The last way is the most natural.)






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        hguler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.










        The rule you've quoted is not always followed. See this discussion, in which it is pointed out that the adverb can go between the verb and the object when the object is long or complicated.



        Note, however, that there isn't necessarily a difference in meaning between 1 and 1' and between 2 and 2'. Drawing a rabbit is a little unusual, so let's take the example of eating an apple. "I only ate an apple" means "I ate an apple and nothing else." In contrast, "I ate only an apple" is correct but slightly awkward. In spoken English, you could put an emphasis on the word "ate" to indicate that "only" is modifying "apple" and not "ate", as in:




        I only ate an apple.




        but in written English (and in spoken English when the word "ate" is not emphasized),




        I only ate an apple.




        means you ate an apple and nothing else.



        If you want to say that you did nothing more than eat an apple, "I merely ate an apple", or "I did nothing more than eat an apple," or, as you suggested, "All I did was eat an apple," would be better ways to indicate that. (The last way is the most natural.)







        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        hguler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 4 hours ago





















        New contributor




        hguler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 4 hours ago









        hgulerhguler

        3064




        3064




        New contributor




        hguler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        hguler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        hguler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f198700%2fplacing-an-adverb-between-a-verb-and-an-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Knooppunt Holsloot

            Altaar (religie)

            Gregoriusmis