“Just Do” vs “Do Just”

Reading about a Japanese distinction, I wondered if the same distinction exists in English, one between

'You can just get to the beach on foot',

and

'You can get to the beach just on foot.'

One where the beach is within walking distance, and one where the beach is not accessible by road.

But which one with which?

And is the relationship between form and meaning one-on-one?

And are these expressions idiomatic?

English channel commenter noted

yes, but prosody could make it more complicated

with the right prosody, the first could mean that there is no road and the second could mean that it’s in walking distance

the first could also mean that the beach is almost but not quite outside of walking distance

Another English channel commenter noted

there’s a distinction, but not the one you’re thinking of. “You can get to the beach just on foot”, means as you suggest that the beach is only accessible on foot; but “you can just get to the beach on foot” means that getting to the beach on foot is only just achievable; it takes a great effort, perhaps because it’s a long way to walk, or because the person normally goes by wheelchair

Or it could mean that it’s straightforward to walk to the beach

Though “almost but not quite outside walking distance” is the same idea as I was trying to convey

“I can just walk to the beach” - it’s at the limit of my ability

“I can just walk to the beach” - it’s so easy that I can get there on foot

“I can walk just to the beach” - the beach is the only permissible destination

… or the only feasible destination to reach on foot. This might come up when discussing a limited range of options.

"There are 3 places to hold a party this weekend. I don’t have a car, and so I can walk just to the beach.

“just about reach” means out of reach, by a small margin. “just reach” means in reach by a small margin

Other commenters said

‘just about reach [the hoop]’ means just within reach.

I expected people to say ‘You can just get to the beach on foot’ meant the only way to get there was to walk there.

But they saw a different sense, meaning it was just in walking distance.

The Japanese examples were, in English,

• ‘This is cured with only an injection,’ and
• ‘This is cured only with an injection.’

In one case, there is a big medical problem, in the other it’s not a big problem.

The second ‘only with’ indicates the big problem, ‘with only’, not.

• ‘with only an injection’: merely with an injection
• ‘only with an injection’: in no other way than with an injection

What about with ‘just’ instead of ‘only’?

• ‘This is cured with just an injection’ is the no-big-problem one?
• ‘This is just cured with an injection’ is ambiguous?

The other example was, translated:

• ‘You can’t go only by bus’ and
• ‘You only can’t go by bus’

In one, all other means of transport are available to you to get there. In the other, bus services taking you there don’t exist. At least part of the way, you have to take the train, or some other means of transport.

But which is which?

‘The only way you can’t go is by bus.’ is more idiomatic, I think, but the example in Japanese was not idiomatic, either? There was an explanation of its meaning.

‘You can’t go only by bus’ is also not idiomatic.

“You only can’t ..” makes sense after, “You can do A and B. You only can’t do C”. Or no?

“The only thing you can’t do is C” is more idiomatic.

“only can’t” usually appears as “not only can’t” on google books.

I need to find an idiomatic version of ‘You can’t go only by bus’ which is minimally different than ‘The only way you can’t go is by bus.’ but still means bus services will not take you all the way from A to B.

• Man does not live by bread alone.
• You cannot go by bus alone.

The original Japanese was contrasting the equivalent of ‘with/by only’ and ‘only with/by’

What about, ‘Only by bus, you cannot go.’ It’s also unidiomatic?

That requires me to change ‘You cannot go by bus alone’ to something more similar to ‘The only way you can’t go is by bus.’

• ‘You can’t get there only by bus’,
• ‘By bus is the only way you can’t get there.’

Pretty succinct, but not a minimal pair.

It worked with,

• ‘This’s cured with only an injection’ and
• ’This is cured only with an injection.

‘The bus is the only way you can’t get there.’

Is that OK? Is it idiomatic? No.

‘You can get there any way, except by bus’. Or,

‘The only way you can’t go is by bus’.

It doesn’t go to the destination you want to go to. If you’re going from A to D, there’s a bus from A to B and one from C to D. But there’s no bus between B and C. You have to take the train or some other means of transport.

So you can’t take the bus the whole way.

You can’t get there only by bus/by bus alone. You can get there only part of the way by bus.

The other sentence says that all other means of transport will get you there. All, except by bus.

Thanks to ##English channel commenters for helping with this.

Read NotJustAPrettyFace

Return to WobblyEnglish