59290
In [this old
question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2728/difference-
between-%E3%81%9F%E3%81%A0-%E3%81%9F%E3%81%A3%E3%81%9F-%E3%81%9F%E3%81%A0-%EF%BD%9E%E3%81%A0%E3%81%91-and-%E3%81%9F%E3%81%A0%E3%81%97
"Q"), it is said that **ただのNOUN** and **NOUNだけだ** are used thus:

> If you meant to say, "It's just an ordinary snake" or the like, it needs to
> be **ただの蛇だ** 。 If you meant "It's only a snake", as in a case where you were
> expecting a Yeti, it would be **蛇だけだ** 。

However, in [this article](https://nihongoshark.com/tada-vs-dake/ "shark"),
the author says it's the other way around under the same circumstance:

> Saying “It’s just a rock.”  
>  Wrong: 石だけだ  
>  Right: ただの石だ

I read the article on NihongoShark first last month, so I am quite annoyed now
to see that people seem to disagree on something that I thought was meant to
be a simple, and common usage. Personally, I find NihongoShark's detailed
explanation and given context more convincing. However, since I once saw a few
unnatural expressions on the website (can't remember what they were anymore),
I have to take everything with a grain of salt. `Whose claim do you agree
with?`

ご意見を伺いたいですから、よろしくお願いいたします！
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-07T00:04:39.230
59279
2018-06-07T04:43:45.337
2018-06-07T00:10:21.097
27674
27674
question
words
Are these sources wrong about the usage of ただ and だけ?
NihongoShark's explanation does not seem to conflict with the first question.
ただの石だ is "It's just a rock" in the sense of "That is merely an ordinary rock
(and not a golem/coin/etc)".

石だけだ would usually mean "There are only rocks here, nothing else (but I'm
actually looking for something else)" or something like that. 蛇だけだ means
"There are only snakes around here (but I'm not interested in snakes now)".
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-07T04:43:45.337
59290
2018-06-07T04:43:45.337
5010
59279
answer