I'll try to answer you Q's line-by-line :-) So far what I got is, 'shika' can only be used with negative verbs. even though it means 'only', the real meaning would be 'anything but... didn't....' Is this right? >> shika is only for negative sentences. The examples say a) 'John shika konakatta' - 'Only John came' ? >>That's correct. But it is implying that many others were expected to come but it turns out that only >>John came. So it is unexpected or even a little disappointment is implied there. If I wanted to say, 'only john DIDNT come', should I use 'dake' like: b) 'John dake konakatta' ? >> This means only John didn't come. But this implies also that everyone else who were expected >> to come came, except for John. Then, why can't I use 'kedo' as 'only' too?, as in c) 'John dake kita' >> This means only John came. But this implies that there were other who were expected (or invited) >> but only John turned up, and nobody else did. What if i said: d) 'John shika kita' - would it mean anything at all? >> This sentence is wrong; either John shika konakatta or John dake kita, as explained above, makes >> sense and correct. do 'dake' and 'shika' replace particles? Let's pretend i want to write 'you're the only one i want to meet' would e) ' kimi shika aitakunai no ' be right? ( the 'no' ending softens it in an emotional way, right?) >> I want to meet only you (and nobody else). Yes, "no" is an affirmative particle which does not add >> any meaning but makes the sentence less direct or softer, slightly. Now what about igai? >>Igai is equivalent of "except", or "other than". John igai kita means everyone except John came. I hope this helps. Keep asking interesting grammar questions!