Talk:only too

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

only too well

"very"? Sounds SOP in this specific meaning, at least. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 20:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Very" doesn't capture it at all — way too broad. Anyway SoP; delete. Equinox ◑ 20:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep but probably move to know only too well. Agreed that "very" is a lame definition. BTW, Collins has an entry for only too, others for know only too well --Mélange a trois (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I added some citations. We should at least make a note that know is the verb it most commonly collocated with. --Mélange a trois (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

We have all too (a synonym?). Equinox ◑ 01:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not only only too well. Something unpleasant may come only too soon. Satire may ring only too true. And one can be only too familiar with something you’d rather wish it ain’t so.  --Lambiam 23:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Is all too a synonym of only too? In the cases I listed above it is: all too well, all too soon, all too true, all too familiar. In other cases it is not. One can say that one should be only too happy to receive some treatment, or do something, but if one is all too happy it sounds as if something is wrong with that happiness: one is all too eager – not good. I don’t know if we can catch all theses nuances, but in only too [X] it seems to make a difference whether the X-ness already has become reality – in which case only weakly intensifies the too and can be omitted (“his death came only too soon”; “the joke rings only too true”; “the story is only too familiar”) – or still has to transpire – in which case the collocation only too means “very” (“We’ll be only too happy to host the event” = “We’ll be very happy to host the event”). I am not sure whether the temporal aspect is really determinative; there also seems to be a difference in whether, in the context, the situation or event to which the X-ness is ascribed is considered positive or negative. A difference with all too is that the latter always appears to imply that the X-ness is ascribed to something unpleasant. I hope that this analysis makes some sense. In any case, it seems to me that we need an entry only too, with two senses, one of which is synonymous with all too. And I think we should make the negativity of the latter explicit in the definition: “More than desirable” instead of a neutral “Very” – while “excessively” overdoes the intensity.  --Lambiam 10:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Perhaps a case is to be made for an only too entry (per all too), but this is clear SOP as demonstrated above. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep. - Dentonius (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete -- too many "only too ~" possibilities for these to be individually idiomatic, but I would support adding only too analogously to all too, where "only too well" can be featured in the examples, albeit in the face of faint misgivings about whether either is truly a constituent. Mihia (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No consensus. bd2412 T 04:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: Why did you close this way? Surjection, Equinox, Mnemosientje, and Mihia favour deletion. WF and Dentonius favour keeping. That looks like consensus. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I read the nomination as asking the question of whether this should be deleted rather than making the assertion that it should, and I read Lambiam's comment as noncommittal on deletion. To clear this up: @Surjection, Lambian? bd2412 T 06:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam will work better. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Well what kind of a name is Lambiam? At least Lambian is a word! Okay, lambiam is a word too, but not in English, and its just a verb form (specifically, the third-person imperfect of "to lick"). bd2412 T 06:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

True story: I was once in court as a witness, after I and my friend got mugged by some guys with a weapon. The lawyer for the muggers (prosecutor? defendant? plaintiff? no clue) was doing so badly that he started making a fuss about my unusual name. The judge cut him off by saying "I think it's a perfectly nice name". ob-RFD: .... Equinox ◑ 06:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The meaning "well" was very much something I thought SOP and thus worth deletion. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, though. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 06:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I am a Sheep in Wolf's clothing, as revealed by my monicker; Lamb I am. I think we should create an only too entry, and I favour Redirecting then (but only then) this one to over there, with a usex using this specific collocation. We could make this a general approach for SOPs that are a highly common specific combination that may be none too transparent to non-native speakers, like fin dall'inizio → fin da. (See also this discussion on useful SOP terms.)  --Lambiam 08:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

In light of the foregoing, I am boldly moving the entry to only too. bd2412 T 16:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

1. As a matter of fact; extremely 2. Unfortunately; very

1. As a matter of fact; extremely I am only too glad to go. 2. Unfortunately; very It is only too likely to happen. --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)