“simply”, “merely” and “only” - Are they interchageable in formal writing?












3















In the following sentence: "They are ....... wasting their time." Would "simply", "merely" and "only" be interchangeable? When I was a student of English I was taught the use of "simply" in formal writing should be restricted to its use as an adverb of "simple". That was long ago and I wonder whether this is still valid in 2014.



EDIT (2019) By formal writing I mean any e-mail or letter where you wish to sound educated, impersonal, and following the rules of etiquette. You would avoid the use of slang words, colloquialisms, or whatever constructions that would make a grammarian cringe.










share|improve this question

























  • Not sure what you would call "formal writing". But any of those in that context mean about the same thing, and I don't think any of them would be inappropriate for what I would think of as formal writing. HTH. Perhaps someone else will shed more light here.

    – Drew
    Oct 14 '14 at 3:00











  • There are no exact synonyms. Also, as close as these three are, they do not mean the same thing. You surely could replace one with the other in formal writing but you'd be giving different mental images. They are not 'in your face' different, but subtly different. How are they different? Oh. 'simply'='the important part is this'. 'merely'='dismissive of the other stuff, and this too', 'only'='there is really one one thing'

    – Mitch
    23 hours ago
















3















In the following sentence: "They are ....... wasting their time." Would "simply", "merely" and "only" be interchangeable? When I was a student of English I was taught the use of "simply" in formal writing should be restricted to its use as an adverb of "simple". That was long ago and I wonder whether this is still valid in 2014.



EDIT (2019) By formal writing I mean any e-mail or letter where you wish to sound educated, impersonal, and following the rules of etiquette. You would avoid the use of slang words, colloquialisms, or whatever constructions that would make a grammarian cringe.










share|improve this question

























  • Not sure what you would call "formal writing". But any of those in that context mean about the same thing, and I don't think any of them would be inappropriate for what I would think of as formal writing. HTH. Perhaps someone else will shed more light here.

    – Drew
    Oct 14 '14 at 3:00











  • There are no exact synonyms. Also, as close as these three are, they do not mean the same thing. You surely could replace one with the other in formal writing but you'd be giving different mental images. They are not 'in your face' different, but subtly different. How are they different? Oh. 'simply'='the important part is this'. 'merely'='dismissive of the other stuff, and this too', 'only'='there is really one one thing'

    – Mitch
    23 hours ago














3












3








3


4






In the following sentence: "They are ....... wasting their time." Would "simply", "merely" and "only" be interchangeable? When I was a student of English I was taught the use of "simply" in formal writing should be restricted to its use as an adverb of "simple". That was long ago and I wonder whether this is still valid in 2014.



EDIT (2019) By formal writing I mean any e-mail or letter where you wish to sound educated, impersonal, and following the rules of etiquette. You would avoid the use of slang words, colloquialisms, or whatever constructions that would make a grammarian cringe.










share|improve this question
















In the following sentence: "They are ....... wasting their time." Would "simply", "merely" and "only" be interchangeable? When I was a student of English I was taught the use of "simply" in formal writing should be restricted to its use as an adverb of "simple". That was long ago and I wonder whether this is still valid in 2014.



EDIT (2019) By formal writing I mean any e-mail or letter where you wish to sound educated, impersonal, and following the rules of etiquette. You would avoid the use of slang words, colloquialisms, or whatever constructions that would make a grammarian cringe.







meaning word-usage formality






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday







Centaurus

















asked Oct 14 '14 at 2:13









CentaurusCentaurus

38.6k31125247




38.6k31125247













  • Not sure what you would call "formal writing". But any of those in that context mean about the same thing, and I don't think any of them would be inappropriate for what I would think of as formal writing. HTH. Perhaps someone else will shed more light here.

    – Drew
    Oct 14 '14 at 3:00











  • There are no exact synonyms. Also, as close as these three are, they do not mean the same thing. You surely could replace one with the other in formal writing but you'd be giving different mental images. They are not 'in your face' different, but subtly different. How are they different? Oh. 'simply'='the important part is this'. 'merely'='dismissive of the other stuff, and this too', 'only'='there is really one one thing'

    – Mitch
    23 hours ago



















  • Not sure what you would call "formal writing". But any of those in that context mean about the same thing, and I don't think any of them would be inappropriate for what I would think of as formal writing. HTH. Perhaps someone else will shed more light here.

    – Drew
    Oct 14 '14 at 3:00











  • There are no exact synonyms. Also, as close as these three are, they do not mean the same thing. You surely could replace one with the other in formal writing but you'd be giving different mental images. They are not 'in your face' different, but subtly different. How are they different? Oh. 'simply'='the important part is this'. 'merely'='dismissive of the other stuff, and this too', 'only'='there is really one one thing'

    – Mitch
    23 hours ago

















Not sure what you would call "formal writing". But any of those in that context mean about the same thing, and I don't think any of them would be inappropriate for what I would think of as formal writing. HTH. Perhaps someone else will shed more light here.

– Drew
Oct 14 '14 at 3:00





Not sure what you would call "formal writing". But any of those in that context mean about the same thing, and I don't think any of them would be inappropriate for what I would think of as formal writing. HTH. Perhaps someone else will shed more light here.

– Drew
Oct 14 '14 at 3:00













There are no exact synonyms. Also, as close as these three are, they do not mean the same thing. You surely could replace one with the other in formal writing but you'd be giving different mental images. They are not 'in your face' different, but subtly different. How are they different? Oh. 'simply'='the important part is this'. 'merely'='dismissive of the other stuff, and this too', 'only'='there is really one one thing'

– Mitch
23 hours ago





There are no exact synonyms. Also, as close as these three are, they do not mean the same thing. You surely could replace one with the other in formal writing but you'd be giving different mental images. They are not 'in your face' different, but subtly different. How are they different? Oh. 'simply'='the important part is this'. 'merely'='dismissive of the other stuff, and this too', 'only'='there is really one one thing'

– Mitch
23 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6














I checked more than a dozen English usage and style guides from the past 100 years and found two treatments of simply that seriously discuss the merits of restricting its use. From Eric Partridge, Usage and Abusage, revised edition (1957):




simply should, in many contexts be avoided in the sense of merely (as in 'He is simply careless'), for it often sets up an ambiguity. Note, too, that 'He spoke simply' = 'in a simple, unaffected, sincere manner', whereas 'He simply spoke' = ''He only spoke; he spoke but did not act, sing, etc. etc.' As an intensive, simply is familiar English —not quite reprehensible, but to be avoided in good writing or dignified speech; 'simply too lovely for words' may be amusing, but it is also trivial.




From Bergen Evans & Cornelia Evans, A Dictionary of Contemporary English (1957):




simply conveys several ideas and needs to be used carefully to avoid ambiguity. Basically it means in a simple manner [example omitted], plainly, unaffectedly [example omitted], artlessly [example omitted].



Three further uses need to be handled with care. Simply may mean merely, only (I was simply trying to keep you you out of trouble), but it may also mean unwisely, foolishly (Simple Simon has become a symbol of men who who behave simply). This last use is now obsolete. Or simply can, and in colloquial use as a vague intensive all too often does, mean absolutely (She looked simply lovely). This is one of those terms which may seem trivial in writing but which its meaning indicated by the proper emphasis, can be quite meaningful.




After 1957, however, I don't find any mention of simply except glancingly by Barbara Wallraff in Word Court (2000), where a New York Times reader argues that it is a superfluous emphasis word in the phrase "simply and more clearly." But in addressing it as part of a wall of complaining sound from readers about modifiers that may or may not be superfluous, Wallraff quickly loses track of it in the mass of examples. At least I think she does. An alternative theory is that she slyly dismisses such criticism by using simply in the disapproved way in the final sentence of her comment:




But surely our linguistic pockets are deep enough for us to spend a few words frivolously, on things beyond the bare necessities—because these things may bring our listeners or our readers closer to us, or simply because it pleases us to spend them.




The overwhelming majority of style and usage guides since 1957 don't address the question of simply at all. From this profound silence, I infer that at some point after 1957—perhaps in 1958—idiomatic usage of simply in the sense of "only" or "merely" became so commonplace that people in the style and usage game stopped worrying about whether using it in that way would doom listeners and readers to needless struggles with ambiguity.



The concerns that Partridge and Evans & Evans expressed about simply do not seem to trouble their present-day counterparts. Today, you can use simply to mean "in a simple way" or you can use it to mean "merely" or you can use it to mean "absolutely"—and in each instance, practically no one will flinch at the informality of the usage, and almost everyone will follow your meaning unerringly.






share|improve this answer


























  • Serious research strategy. Great answer. Undervoted, though.

    – Centaurus
    yesterday



















2














While they technically all mean the same general thing, each has a slightly different connotation.




They are simply wasting their time.




This could be used to indicate that the people being referred to are being foolish by wasting time. This could occur as follows:




Person 1: Hey, did you hear how Mike and Joe signed up for the tennis team even though they have never played before in their lives?



Person 2: Those fools, I don't know what's gotten into them. They are simply wasting their time.




The people being referred to have made a mistake, so the word "simply" indicates their bad decision.




They are only wasting their time.




This could be used to indicate that the people being referred to are doing nothing harmful besides the fact that they are wasting time. This could occur as follows.




Person 1: Hey, don't you think its bad that they are playing tennis?



Person 2: No way, I think it's okay. They are only wasting their time.




While what the people being referred to may be being unproductive, they haven't done anything harmful.




They are merely wasting their time.




This is the real tricky one, as its connotation could go both ways. It is all about context and inflection of the speaker for this word, which is why it can be very hard to tell what is meant in written text.



Now, it must be noted that each of these can be used interchangeably depending on how a speaker inflects his or her voice. What I have shown above is more of a guidelines for the default meanings behind each word choice, but nothing is absolute. Some of this also depends on where the speaker is from and to whom the speaker is speaking to, but the most important aspect is inflection.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    };
    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%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f202313%2fsimply-merely-and-only-are-they-interchageable-in-formal-writing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6














    I checked more than a dozen English usage and style guides from the past 100 years and found two treatments of simply that seriously discuss the merits of restricting its use. From Eric Partridge, Usage and Abusage, revised edition (1957):




    simply should, in many contexts be avoided in the sense of merely (as in 'He is simply careless'), for it often sets up an ambiguity. Note, too, that 'He spoke simply' = 'in a simple, unaffected, sincere manner', whereas 'He simply spoke' = ''He only spoke; he spoke but did not act, sing, etc. etc.' As an intensive, simply is familiar English —not quite reprehensible, but to be avoided in good writing or dignified speech; 'simply too lovely for words' may be amusing, but it is also trivial.




    From Bergen Evans & Cornelia Evans, A Dictionary of Contemporary English (1957):




    simply conveys several ideas and needs to be used carefully to avoid ambiguity. Basically it means in a simple manner [example omitted], plainly, unaffectedly [example omitted], artlessly [example omitted].



    Three further uses need to be handled with care. Simply may mean merely, only (I was simply trying to keep you you out of trouble), but it may also mean unwisely, foolishly (Simple Simon has become a symbol of men who who behave simply). This last use is now obsolete. Or simply can, and in colloquial use as a vague intensive all too often does, mean absolutely (She looked simply lovely). This is one of those terms which may seem trivial in writing but which its meaning indicated by the proper emphasis, can be quite meaningful.




    After 1957, however, I don't find any mention of simply except glancingly by Barbara Wallraff in Word Court (2000), where a New York Times reader argues that it is a superfluous emphasis word in the phrase "simply and more clearly." But in addressing it as part of a wall of complaining sound from readers about modifiers that may or may not be superfluous, Wallraff quickly loses track of it in the mass of examples. At least I think she does. An alternative theory is that she slyly dismisses such criticism by using simply in the disapproved way in the final sentence of her comment:




    But surely our linguistic pockets are deep enough for us to spend a few words frivolously, on things beyond the bare necessities—because these things may bring our listeners or our readers closer to us, or simply because it pleases us to spend them.




    The overwhelming majority of style and usage guides since 1957 don't address the question of simply at all. From this profound silence, I infer that at some point after 1957—perhaps in 1958—idiomatic usage of simply in the sense of "only" or "merely" became so commonplace that people in the style and usage game stopped worrying about whether using it in that way would doom listeners and readers to needless struggles with ambiguity.



    The concerns that Partridge and Evans & Evans expressed about simply do not seem to trouble their present-day counterparts. Today, you can use simply to mean "in a simple way" or you can use it to mean "merely" or you can use it to mean "absolutely"—and in each instance, practically no one will flinch at the informality of the usage, and almost everyone will follow your meaning unerringly.






    share|improve this answer


























    • Serious research strategy. Great answer. Undervoted, though.

      – Centaurus
      yesterday
















    6














    I checked more than a dozen English usage and style guides from the past 100 years and found two treatments of simply that seriously discuss the merits of restricting its use. From Eric Partridge, Usage and Abusage, revised edition (1957):




    simply should, in many contexts be avoided in the sense of merely (as in 'He is simply careless'), for it often sets up an ambiguity. Note, too, that 'He spoke simply' = 'in a simple, unaffected, sincere manner', whereas 'He simply spoke' = ''He only spoke; he spoke but did not act, sing, etc. etc.' As an intensive, simply is familiar English —not quite reprehensible, but to be avoided in good writing or dignified speech; 'simply too lovely for words' may be amusing, but it is also trivial.




    From Bergen Evans & Cornelia Evans, A Dictionary of Contemporary English (1957):




    simply conveys several ideas and needs to be used carefully to avoid ambiguity. Basically it means in a simple manner [example omitted], plainly, unaffectedly [example omitted], artlessly [example omitted].



    Three further uses need to be handled with care. Simply may mean merely, only (I was simply trying to keep you you out of trouble), but it may also mean unwisely, foolishly (Simple Simon has become a symbol of men who who behave simply). This last use is now obsolete. Or simply can, and in colloquial use as a vague intensive all too often does, mean absolutely (She looked simply lovely). This is one of those terms which may seem trivial in writing but which its meaning indicated by the proper emphasis, can be quite meaningful.




    After 1957, however, I don't find any mention of simply except glancingly by Barbara Wallraff in Word Court (2000), where a New York Times reader argues that it is a superfluous emphasis word in the phrase "simply and more clearly." But in addressing it as part of a wall of complaining sound from readers about modifiers that may or may not be superfluous, Wallraff quickly loses track of it in the mass of examples. At least I think she does. An alternative theory is that she slyly dismisses such criticism by using simply in the disapproved way in the final sentence of her comment:




    But surely our linguistic pockets are deep enough for us to spend a few words frivolously, on things beyond the bare necessities—because these things may bring our listeners or our readers closer to us, or simply because it pleases us to spend them.




    The overwhelming majority of style and usage guides since 1957 don't address the question of simply at all. From this profound silence, I infer that at some point after 1957—perhaps in 1958—idiomatic usage of simply in the sense of "only" or "merely" became so commonplace that people in the style and usage game stopped worrying about whether using it in that way would doom listeners and readers to needless struggles with ambiguity.



    The concerns that Partridge and Evans & Evans expressed about simply do not seem to trouble their present-day counterparts. Today, you can use simply to mean "in a simple way" or you can use it to mean "merely" or you can use it to mean "absolutely"—and in each instance, practically no one will flinch at the informality of the usage, and almost everyone will follow your meaning unerringly.






    share|improve this answer


























    • Serious research strategy. Great answer. Undervoted, though.

      – Centaurus
      yesterday














    6












    6








    6







    I checked more than a dozen English usage and style guides from the past 100 years and found two treatments of simply that seriously discuss the merits of restricting its use. From Eric Partridge, Usage and Abusage, revised edition (1957):




    simply should, in many contexts be avoided in the sense of merely (as in 'He is simply careless'), for it often sets up an ambiguity. Note, too, that 'He spoke simply' = 'in a simple, unaffected, sincere manner', whereas 'He simply spoke' = ''He only spoke; he spoke but did not act, sing, etc. etc.' As an intensive, simply is familiar English —not quite reprehensible, but to be avoided in good writing or dignified speech; 'simply too lovely for words' may be amusing, but it is also trivial.




    From Bergen Evans & Cornelia Evans, A Dictionary of Contemporary English (1957):




    simply conveys several ideas and needs to be used carefully to avoid ambiguity. Basically it means in a simple manner [example omitted], plainly, unaffectedly [example omitted], artlessly [example omitted].



    Three further uses need to be handled with care. Simply may mean merely, only (I was simply trying to keep you you out of trouble), but it may also mean unwisely, foolishly (Simple Simon has become a symbol of men who who behave simply). This last use is now obsolete. Or simply can, and in colloquial use as a vague intensive all too often does, mean absolutely (She looked simply lovely). This is one of those terms which may seem trivial in writing but which its meaning indicated by the proper emphasis, can be quite meaningful.




    After 1957, however, I don't find any mention of simply except glancingly by Barbara Wallraff in Word Court (2000), where a New York Times reader argues that it is a superfluous emphasis word in the phrase "simply and more clearly." But in addressing it as part of a wall of complaining sound from readers about modifiers that may or may not be superfluous, Wallraff quickly loses track of it in the mass of examples. At least I think she does. An alternative theory is that she slyly dismisses such criticism by using simply in the disapproved way in the final sentence of her comment:




    But surely our linguistic pockets are deep enough for us to spend a few words frivolously, on things beyond the bare necessities—because these things may bring our listeners or our readers closer to us, or simply because it pleases us to spend them.




    The overwhelming majority of style and usage guides since 1957 don't address the question of simply at all. From this profound silence, I infer that at some point after 1957—perhaps in 1958—idiomatic usage of simply in the sense of "only" or "merely" became so commonplace that people in the style and usage game stopped worrying about whether using it in that way would doom listeners and readers to needless struggles with ambiguity.



    The concerns that Partridge and Evans & Evans expressed about simply do not seem to trouble their present-day counterparts. Today, you can use simply to mean "in a simple way" or you can use it to mean "merely" or you can use it to mean "absolutely"—and in each instance, practically no one will flinch at the informality of the usage, and almost everyone will follow your meaning unerringly.






    share|improve this answer















    I checked more than a dozen English usage and style guides from the past 100 years and found two treatments of simply that seriously discuss the merits of restricting its use. From Eric Partridge, Usage and Abusage, revised edition (1957):




    simply should, in many contexts be avoided in the sense of merely (as in 'He is simply careless'), for it often sets up an ambiguity. Note, too, that 'He spoke simply' = 'in a simple, unaffected, sincere manner', whereas 'He simply spoke' = ''He only spoke; he spoke but did not act, sing, etc. etc.' As an intensive, simply is familiar English —not quite reprehensible, but to be avoided in good writing or dignified speech; 'simply too lovely for words' may be amusing, but it is also trivial.




    From Bergen Evans & Cornelia Evans, A Dictionary of Contemporary English (1957):




    simply conveys several ideas and needs to be used carefully to avoid ambiguity. Basically it means in a simple manner [example omitted], plainly, unaffectedly [example omitted], artlessly [example omitted].



    Three further uses need to be handled with care. Simply may mean merely, only (I was simply trying to keep you you out of trouble), but it may also mean unwisely, foolishly (Simple Simon has become a symbol of men who who behave simply). This last use is now obsolete. Or simply can, and in colloquial use as a vague intensive all too often does, mean absolutely (She looked simply lovely). This is one of those terms which may seem trivial in writing but which its meaning indicated by the proper emphasis, can be quite meaningful.




    After 1957, however, I don't find any mention of simply except glancingly by Barbara Wallraff in Word Court (2000), where a New York Times reader argues that it is a superfluous emphasis word in the phrase "simply and more clearly." But in addressing it as part of a wall of complaining sound from readers about modifiers that may or may not be superfluous, Wallraff quickly loses track of it in the mass of examples. At least I think she does. An alternative theory is that she slyly dismisses such criticism by using simply in the disapproved way in the final sentence of her comment:




    But surely our linguistic pockets are deep enough for us to spend a few words frivolously, on things beyond the bare necessities—because these things may bring our listeners or our readers closer to us, or simply because it pleases us to spend them.




    The overwhelming majority of style and usage guides since 1957 don't address the question of simply at all. From this profound silence, I infer that at some point after 1957—perhaps in 1958—idiomatic usage of simply in the sense of "only" or "merely" became so commonplace that people in the style and usage game stopped worrying about whether using it in that way would doom listeners and readers to needless struggles with ambiguity.



    The concerns that Partridge and Evans & Evans expressed about simply do not seem to trouble their present-day counterparts. Today, you can use simply to mean "in a simple way" or you can use it to mean "merely" or you can use it to mean "absolutely"—and in each instance, practically no one will flinch at the informality of the usage, and almost everyone will follow your meaning unerringly.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 21 hours ago

























    answered Dec 4 '14 at 7:14









    Sven YargsSven Yargs

    114k20249507




    114k20249507













    • Serious research strategy. Great answer. Undervoted, though.

      – Centaurus
      yesterday



















    • Serious research strategy. Great answer. Undervoted, though.

      – Centaurus
      yesterday

















    Serious research strategy. Great answer. Undervoted, though.

    – Centaurus
    yesterday





    Serious research strategy. Great answer. Undervoted, though.

    – Centaurus
    yesterday













    2














    While they technically all mean the same general thing, each has a slightly different connotation.




    They are simply wasting their time.




    This could be used to indicate that the people being referred to are being foolish by wasting time. This could occur as follows:




    Person 1: Hey, did you hear how Mike and Joe signed up for the tennis team even though they have never played before in their lives?



    Person 2: Those fools, I don't know what's gotten into them. They are simply wasting their time.




    The people being referred to have made a mistake, so the word "simply" indicates their bad decision.




    They are only wasting their time.




    This could be used to indicate that the people being referred to are doing nothing harmful besides the fact that they are wasting time. This could occur as follows.




    Person 1: Hey, don't you think its bad that they are playing tennis?



    Person 2: No way, I think it's okay. They are only wasting their time.




    While what the people being referred to may be being unproductive, they haven't done anything harmful.




    They are merely wasting their time.




    This is the real tricky one, as its connotation could go both ways. It is all about context and inflection of the speaker for this word, which is why it can be very hard to tell what is meant in written text.



    Now, it must be noted that each of these can be used interchangeably depending on how a speaker inflects his or her voice. What I have shown above is more of a guidelines for the default meanings behind each word choice, but nothing is absolute. Some of this also depends on where the speaker is from and to whom the speaker is speaking to, but the most important aspect is inflection.






    share|improve this answer




























      2














      While they technically all mean the same general thing, each has a slightly different connotation.




      They are simply wasting their time.




      This could be used to indicate that the people being referred to are being foolish by wasting time. This could occur as follows:




      Person 1: Hey, did you hear how Mike and Joe signed up for the tennis team even though they have never played before in their lives?



      Person 2: Those fools, I don't know what's gotten into them. They are simply wasting their time.




      The people being referred to have made a mistake, so the word "simply" indicates their bad decision.




      They are only wasting their time.




      This could be used to indicate that the people being referred to are doing nothing harmful besides the fact that they are wasting time. This could occur as follows.




      Person 1: Hey, don't you think its bad that they are playing tennis?



      Person 2: No way, I think it's okay. They are only wasting their time.




      While what the people being referred to may be being unproductive, they haven't done anything harmful.




      They are merely wasting their time.




      This is the real tricky one, as its connotation could go both ways. It is all about context and inflection of the speaker for this word, which is why it can be very hard to tell what is meant in written text.



      Now, it must be noted that each of these can be used interchangeably depending on how a speaker inflects his or her voice. What I have shown above is more of a guidelines for the default meanings behind each word choice, but nothing is absolute. Some of this also depends on where the speaker is from and to whom the speaker is speaking to, but the most important aspect is inflection.






      share|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2







        While they technically all mean the same general thing, each has a slightly different connotation.




        They are simply wasting their time.




        This could be used to indicate that the people being referred to are being foolish by wasting time. This could occur as follows:




        Person 1: Hey, did you hear how Mike and Joe signed up for the tennis team even though they have never played before in their lives?



        Person 2: Those fools, I don't know what's gotten into them. They are simply wasting their time.




        The people being referred to have made a mistake, so the word "simply" indicates their bad decision.




        They are only wasting their time.




        This could be used to indicate that the people being referred to are doing nothing harmful besides the fact that they are wasting time. This could occur as follows.




        Person 1: Hey, don't you think its bad that they are playing tennis?



        Person 2: No way, I think it's okay. They are only wasting their time.




        While what the people being referred to may be being unproductive, they haven't done anything harmful.




        They are merely wasting their time.




        This is the real tricky one, as its connotation could go both ways. It is all about context and inflection of the speaker for this word, which is why it can be very hard to tell what is meant in written text.



        Now, it must be noted that each of these can be used interchangeably depending on how a speaker inflects his or her voice. What I have shown above is more of a guidelines for the default meanings behind each word choice, but nothing is absolute. Some of this also depends on where the speaker is from and to whom the speaker is speaking to, but the most important aspect is inflection.






        share|improve this answer













        While they technically all mean the same general thing, each has a slightly different connotation.




        They are simply wasting their time.




        This could be used to indicate that the people being referred to are being foolish by wasting time. This could occur as follows:




        Person 1: Hey, did you hear how Mike and Joe signed up for the tennis team even though they have never played before in their lives?



        Person 2: Those fools, I don't know what's gotten into them. They are simply wasting their time.




        The people being referred to have made a mistake, so the word "simply" indicates their bad decision.




        They are only wasting their time.




        This could be used to indicate that the people being referred to are doing nothing harmful besides the fact that they are wasting time. This could occur as follows.




        Person 1: Hey, don't you think its bad that they are playing tennis?



        Person 2: No way, I think it's okay. They are only wasting their time.




        While what the people being referred to may be being unproductive, they haven't done anything harmful.




        They are merely wasting their time.




        This is the real tricky one, as its connotation could go both ways. It is all about context and inflection of the speaker for this word, which is why it can be very hard to tell what is meant in written text.



        Now, it must be noted that each of these can be used interchangeably depending on how a speaker inflects his or her voice. What I have shown above is more of a guidelines for the default meanings behind each word choice, but nothing is absolute. Some of this also depends on where the speaker is from and to whom the speaker is speaking to, but the most important aspect is inflection.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Oct 14 '14 at 23:14









        NerdatopeNerdatope

        511




        511






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage 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%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f202313%2fsimply-merely-and-only-are-they-interchageable-in-formal-writing%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

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029