About inversion/help

Forum > English only || Bottom

[POST A NEW REPLY] [Subscribe to this topic]

About inversion/help
Message from dangkhoa posted on 29-07-2012 at 03:56:45 (D | E | F)
Hello,

Could you help me please?
Thank you for your answers.

Except when we form the inversion in the question, the inversion is used after a number of adverbs or adverb phrases of negation or restriction such as never, scarcely, only, under no circumstances, little...
In the sentence 'Under no circumstances are you to go out.' we use the inversion of the subject because of the presence of the adverb phrase 'under no circumstances' at the beginning of the sentence.
May the inversion be in the main clause or in the sub clause? Can we write
'She was so nice to me at first that little did I think that she could be so cruel.'little' is in the sub clause ' I think that...'

-------------------
Edited by lucile83 on 29-07-2012 08:12

Re: About inversion/help from notrepere, posted on 29-07-2012 at 05:14:59 (D | E)
Hello

Yes, you need inversion following the word "little".
Little did I think that she could be so cruel.
I did not think that she could be so cruel.

Re: About inversion/help from dangkhoa, posted on 29-07-2012 at 13:44:41 (D | E)
Thank you very much for your explanation of the inversion.
But I think the inversion must be used in the main clause as in the sentence 'Only by shouting was he able to make himself heard' or in 'Nowhere will you find better roses than these' while the adverb 'little' was used in the sub clause.
Do you think so?

Re: About inversion/help from lucile83, posted on 29-07-2012 at 15:16:02 (D | E)
Hello,

You can use the inversion in any sentence, main or sub clause. Why couldn't you?

Example with main clause in blue:
He was amazed because no sooner had he locked the door than the phone started ringing.
You can see that each inversion is in the sub clause.

-------------------
Edited by lucile83 on 30-07-2012 08:19
2nd sentence deleted

Re: About inversion/help from traviskidd, posted on 30-07-2012 at 00:40:38 (D | E)
Hello.

The "adverb + inversion" structure has an affective quality that makes it awkward, if not wrong, to use in a subordinate clause. I would avoid it.
As for lucile83's examples, the first one contains "because" which is a conjunction (so what follows isn't really subordinate), and the second doesn't contain an inversion at all.
See you.

Re: About inversion/help from lucile83, posted on 30-07-2012 at 08:31:07 (D | E)
Hello traviskidd,

You are right for my 2nd example, then I deleted it.
In my example with because (conjunction) it is not exactly a subordinate,it is a cause clause; the result is the same.
It is a pity you don't use that kind of structure in a sentence as it is quite good British English.

Re: About inversion/help from dangkhoa, posted on 31-07-2012 at 13:32:44 (D | E)
Hello,

As for me I think the subordinate introduced by a conjunction such as when, because, although, if, except, so that, wherever...is one of the adverb clauses. The conjunction 'that' begins a noun clause as in 'I say that he is good at English'. The conjunction 'that' can be used at the beginning of an adverb clause as in 'He is so good at English that everyone looks up to him'.
About the usage of the inversion of the subject in case of the presence of the adverbs of negative or restrictive in a sub-clause, I seldom see that. I hope you can give me more examples used by any writers you've ever read.
Thank you very much.

-------------------
Edited by lucile83 on 31-07-2012 13:40

Re: About inversion/help from lucile83, posted on 31-07-2012 at 13:39:47 (D | E)
Hello,

Link

Re: About inversion/help from traviskidd, posted on 31-07-2012 at 14:02:50 (D | E)
Hello.

I didn't say that we didn't use the structure "adverb + inversion"; I said it's best not to use it in a subordinate clause.

Never will I break your heart. OK
You can trust me, because never will I break your heart. OK
You know that never will I break your heart. not (really) OK
You know that I will never break your heart. OK (no inversion)

Also, I don't consider "that" a conjunction (although the online dictionary does). To me, it is the first word of the subordinate clause which acts as a noun. To take my last example above:

You know X, where X is a noun, in this case "that I will never break your heart".

I consider a conjunction to separate two independent clauses; it can grammatically be replaced by a semicolon.

You can trust me; never will I break your heart.

(Ironically, if you replace "that" by a semicolon, it is the subordinate clause that appears to stand on its own. But it is nevertheless a subordinate part of the main clause "You know X".)

See you.

[POST A NEW REPLY] [Subscribe to this topic]

Forum > English only