> Does that not imply "only"?

Yes, Nancy, on rethinking that phrasing I think you're right - it does probably imply that doesn't it? But eta's point is all the more valid anyway, and we could spin those words around to make other patterns, na Vern? Of course it's at the cost of being a mere sequence of sounds - and I hope he's not going to pretend any of those sounds have inherent characteristics that identify them as particular 'parts of speech', because that only comes from their content...