What To Call Missing Operator: Unevaluated and then Quoted

It strikes me looking at these examples that we are missing an operator:

>> operatorX foo
== 'foo

>> operatorX (1 + 2)
== '(1 + 2)

This operator is basically QUOTE UNEVALUATED (or ^ UNEVALUATED). It takes a value as-is and then adds a quote level to it.

We might imagine calling this operator ONLY, even though it does something different than what /ONLY traditionally did:

 >> only word
 == 'word

 >> append [a b c] only word
 == [a b c word]

This would be nice for is someone who is trying to avoid putting in brackets or apostrophes or other things to cloud what they're writing.

Although append [a b c] [word] does work, the extra block can get in the way a bit. Consider:

if find [a b c] [word] [
    print {Consider how "blocky" this looks.}

if find [a b c] ^ 'word [
    print {This looks one step more symbol-y than with apostrophe alone.}

if find [a b c] only word [
    print {This might be preferable, and (could) perform better.}

Or it could be called JUST, and we could find another name for JUST. :-/

 >> just word
 == 'word

 >> append [a b c] just word
 == [a b c word]

Though personally have gotten a bit attached to JUST doing what it does today, but we could consider THE for that:

 >> the x
 == x  ; not 'x

THE doesn't seem like a great fit for this operator on its own:

 >> the word
 == 'word

 >> append [a b c] the word
 == [a b c word]

Something about JUST makes it seem like it would be a little more subtle and sneaky than THE. (If I asked you between JUST and THE which you'd imagine doing something more basic, you'd say THE, right?)*

Could work. It's not like you'd have to use it, but it gives an option.

This also gives the option of ONLY being the way of creating a single element block, which could come in handy for something, and makes a little more sense:

>> only [a b]
== [[a b]]

>> only 1 + 2  ; it's evaluative
== [3]

>> only 'x  ; one more symbol than you want
== [x]