Grammar Moses: You only say you enjoy my column. What am I to think of that?

I've written before about the importance of putting "only" in its proper place.

Scott Zapel of Glen Ellyn wrote to remind me that "only" isn't the only adverb that will cause you problems when you don't put it adjacent to the verb it describes.

But first, he reminded me of a fine example of how poor placement of "only" could create painful ambiguity.

Start with "She told me she loved me." Now add "only" in different spots and watch how the meaning is altered.

• "She only told me she loved me."

She never showed me she loved me. Or did she lie when she said it?

• "She told only me she loved me."

Is she ashamed of me? Or does her daddy have a distaste for newspaper editors ... and a shotgun?

• "She told me only that she loved me."

She wouldn't give me her name, tell me where she lives or even what her Twitter handle is.

• "She told me she loved only me."

OK, it's too late for reassurances now. I've already tumbled into a pit of despair.

But that's not why Scott wrote me. He wanted to let me know I broke my own rule in last week's column.

"I have a small bone to pick with," he wrote. "You say: 'Sure, you understand what I'm getting at eventually, but it forces you to pause.'

"What caused me to pause with that sentence was your placement of 'eventually.' You weren't taking your time to get at something; rather, I, the reader, was understanding after some thought. Thus, I think you should have said: 'Sure, you eventually understand what I'm getting at, but it forces you to pause."

I can't explain it any any better.

Distressing sentence

Kevin Cloonan of Round Lake asked that I address a sentence in a recent Daily Herald story in which multiple verbs clouded the meaning of what was happening.

"The phrasing that I found to be unclear was: 'Smith filed a lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Jones."

At first glance, he wrote, it appears the lawsuit was about malicious prosecution and emotional distress inflicted upon Jones.

In fact, it was Jones who is alleged to have caused distress.

Kevin continued: "Wouldn't the sentence be clearer if it read: 'Smith filed a lawsuit against Jones alleging malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress'?"

Kevin is right.

Keeping the subject-verb-object string intact clarifies the meaning of the sentence.

Observation: Now that the lawsuit has been filed, I'm sure Jones is feeling no small measure of emotional distress.

Everything's iconic!

"One of my pet bugaboos is the word 'iconic,'" writes Cynthia Cwynar of Carpentersville. "Once I was made aware of its commonality, I saw it EVERYWHERE! It is used in almost everything I read and every newscast I watch, whether it is used correctly or not."

For something to be iconic, it must be representative of something (hence our weekly photo tour of the suburbs being called "Icons of Whoville") or something worthy of veneration.

It's hard to argue against calling Jimi Hendrix an iconic guitar player. Big Ben is an iconic piece of London architecture. But "iconic" seems to have morphed into a meaningless go-to adjective. You're really stretching when you refer to something as pedestrian as a pair of shoelaces as iconic.

Write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is vice president/managing editor of the Daily Herald. Write him at jbaumann@dailyherald.com. Put Grammar Moses in the subject line. You also can friend or follow Jim at facebook.com/baumannjim.