The dreaded word "only"

   Date:         Mon, 13 Jan 1992 17:09:26 EST
   From: John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan@UUNET.UU.NET>
   X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
   ...
	   la djordj. du ro da poi darxi le tamni fo le nazbi
	   George is-identical-to all those who hit the cousin on the nose.
	   Only George hit his cousin on his nose.

   (Note that English is over-specific by Lojban standards in saying "his cousin".
   and "his nose".  Likewise, English idiomatically says "He put his hands in his
   pockets": to speakers of other languages, the question naturally arises
   "Whose pockets would he put his hands in?", and even more peculiar, "Whose
   hands would he put in his pockets?".)

On the contrary, English is very much in the spirit of Lojban here;
the default is that the possible sets of hands are unconstrained,
rather than the default being an implicit assumption that is
rooted more in physiology and social convention than in linguistics.

If I were to say, "He put hands in pockets", it is entirely appropriate
that your immediate reaction be to ask "Whose hands?  Which pockets?"
rather than to assume that I mean his hands and his pockets; for in the
presence of defaulting, there is no simple way to say that I don't want
say whose hands or pockets!

Then again, consider the not entirely awkward English phraseology:

	"He stood outside the soda shoppe, hands in pockets."

Which way do you want it?

--Guy Steele