I agree. "Only" should come AFTER "have" to modify "sixty cents." It is misplaced to put it before "have" because then it modifies "have" and the meaning becomes you just HAVE the money and don't do anything else with it. (Though colloquial this arrangement is often used the same way, even though it is not correct.)
It's correct and fine to use.
- I only have sixty cents. - I have that amount and nothing more.
- I have only sixty cents. - I expected to have more.
I don't understand why DL is giving a traduction of "centavos" by "cents". A peso remains a peso, an euro remains an euro, shouldn't a centavo remain a centavo? Merci.
Pesos, dollars, and euros are currencies, a cent is, in some countries, a monetary unit equal to one hundredth of a decimal currency unit.
You don't spell out the conclusion. For me, this means, if I have sixty centavos in my pocket, they remain sixty centavos no matter in which language I say it. End of story.
Not sure what "traduction" means, but agree that "centavo" should remain a centavo. Especially if it doesn't correspond exactly to a penny.
'I have only sixty cents.' was accepted today 16/10/2018 (see also marcy65brown's post from a month ago).
As also noted in previous posts (see Martha112199), this construction makes more sense than Duo's. Although in common usage, the placement of only in Duo's sentence puts the emphasis on the word 'have' and is therefore misplaced, unless of course the implied meaning is that you have the money, but you don't spend it, or give it away, etc. But that seems doubtful.
"I just have sixty cents! " is the true meaning of this sentence. "I have only sixty cents" (Tengo solo sesenta centavos) means that the sixty cents is the only thing you have (and nothing else).
$.60 should be accepted, i should not have write out the words in English