I cannot off the top of my head think of a situation in which reversing the order transforms the meaning of the sentence.
The way it is set up there is no difference. To a nit picky philosophy major they could argue that you only have SATISFACTION eating food that you cook, as opposed to any other thing, such as swimming, running, reading, etc., but that is too deep.
Yeah. It's probably important to indicate when the satisfaction occurs, rather than focus on the word order. Does the satisfaction happen only when eating food you've cooked (as opposed to any other activity?) Or is it that you simply don't like eating food other people have cooked? This point doesn't necessarily have to be made within that sentence, though. Presumably the context has already been set up by whatever came before. If the topic of the scene is about eating out in restaurants, the narrator is making it clear he doesn't enjoy the experience because other people have cooked the food. OR, the scene might be about other activities in his life, and he's making it clear that that he'd rather be staying home and cooking for himself instead.
Generally, a modifier binds most closely to the closest eligible word or phrase, preferring a following rather than preceding candidate. That's not an iron-clad rule by any means, but in a case like this, it means the emphasis of only is on the condition phrase, not on the word satisfied. It's a subtle distinction for sure. The other factor here is the first word order is the more common, so the second stands out as different, making the reader pay just that much more attention to the exact meaning. Which also helps explain why the thread exists.
According to the general rule, the latter word order should be more commonly used. Why is the former word order more commonly used?
I agree that the distinction in the OP is subtle, if it exists at all. Moving the "only" to elsewhere in the sentence, of course, could change the meaning dramatically ("I'm satisfied when I only eat food that I cook," for example... but I don't think there's a distinction between that and "I'm satisfied when I eat only food that I cook.") As long as the word order doesn't change the word the modifier attaches to, there's no significant difference. But then I think of the different meanings when we shift the modifier to avoid the split infinitive in the classic "To boldly go where no man has gone before"... that has a different meaning, to me, than "to go boldly where no man has gone before." In the first phrase, the "boldly" seems to modify the entire rest of the sentence, while placing the "boldly" after the "go" seems to limit the modification just to "go". But possibly this is just me?
The adverb can float all over that sentence. As it does, it subtly changes meaning. It's very typical for an adverb to follow a being verb (in this case, "am," hiding inside of "I'm"). That's why it seems most natural there. If you wanted to emphasize the adverb itself, you would choose: I only am satisfied when I eat food that I cook. The default position with the adverb seamlessly blending is: I'm only satisfied when I eat food that I cook. (This is because the adverb loves setting up shop after the being verb.) And in your last sentence, the adverbs are stuck together because of their placement. (There are two of them, one is a dependent clause acting adverbially.) It's literally showing when you're satisfied, an adverbial usage. Adverbs of mannerism like to go at the end of sentences. This is pretty much a compound adverb, with one item of the pair being a clause. So first the thought is completed (I'm satisfied) and then that whole idea is expounded upon. I'm satisfied only when I eat food that I cook. (And this very unnatural, dorky change means the same thing.) I'm satisfied when I eat food that I cook, only. (But no human being would say this, even if the grammar works. Note: this also emphasizes the adverb by putting it last in the sentence. First and last get the most attention. Typically, last even more so. It sort of echoes into the next sentence.) The emphasis is pretty subtle. It's so soft here that I'm not sure it's worth any sentence gymnastics. The most important thing is to choose the natural wording (unless it's really something more than just a simple statement).
From a linguistic standpoint, the first one would mean that you're just satisfied when you eat food you cook and the second means you are satisfied if you only eat food you cook.
Ooh, it could, yeah! I don't think this is the only valid interpretation of the first sentence, but given the context, it's a potential interpretation, one that isn't there with the second! Yay! (Don't know why this makes me happy... I just like learning stuff?)
the first implies you only time you are EVER satisfied is when you eat food you cook (nothing else in the world satisfies you) the second implies you are only satisfied with food that you cook. At least that is how I read it....
No, they both can be interpreted the same way regardless of the interpretation and that is why there is no difference in the sentences. The bottom line is there are better ways of constructing the sentence to get the writers point across without confusion.
>From a linguistic standpoint, the first one would mean that you're just satisfied when you eat food you cook and the second means you are satisfied if you only eat food you cook. Do you mean that he's just satisfied and nothing more, nothing less?
I already said that all the way at the top, but that still isn't the only interpretation. It could mean you're satisfied when you eat food you cook as opposed to eating it raw.
I think so, yeah. Like: I'm only satisfied when I eat food that I cook, but I am delighted as well as sustained when I eat food prepared by others. That interpretation wouldn't work as well with the "I'm satisfied only" structure. Well, I guess it still could... hmmmm...
Like only cooking food satisfies him and nothing else, like reading, writing, watching tv, etc., but I think the writer/OP was intending it to mean food she cooks as opposed to someone else cooked it.
