Timeline for Use of "did" in an affirmative sentence before subject [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2015 at 11:46 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jan 8, 2015 at 12:59 | |||||
| Jan 8, 2015 at 11:23 | vote | accept | rodrigorgs | ||
| Jan 8, 2015 at 10:59 | history | closed |
Peter Shor Edwin Ashworth tchrist♦ Drew A E |
Duplicate of Inversion in "only [adverb] have they" | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 2:27 | history | edited | tchrist♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 8, 2015 at 2:12 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @tchrist Yes, possible to use an only with a completely different meaning there. Maybe that's what rodrigorgs wanted to say. | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 2:03 | comment | added | tchrist♦ | “I did everything I could to stop it from doing anything at all forever more; it took me two months of solid work at the end of the old year. My plan seemed to work: it didn’t do anything at all throughout the dead of winter, nor even in April or May. I thought we were finally free of the infernal daemon, having gone five months without trouble. Only in June it created repositories. I couldn’t believe it! I was simply beside myself with fury. Stupid daemons!” | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 1:44 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @Martin Hmm, what's the negative adverbial there? | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 1:40 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @medica This thread is also entertaining but doesn't explain - nor does the question ask - why the inversion occurs. As you'll see from both answers in the comments above, preposing with a restrictive only is not enough to trigger inversion. | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 1:36 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @medica The OP rightly says that we use do for emphasis when this auxiliary occurs before the verb. As you say, it is occurring here because of only. However your assertion that the sentence must have inversion because they 'began the sentence only, is not correct see both answers here. (Beware, the top-voted answer contains some completely incorrect information - as per Janus' comments as well as the second answer there - so please on no account make this a dupe of that question!) | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 1:03 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | I've added a proper post now, hope it explains:) Any questions just ask though! :-) | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 0:58 | answer | added | Araucaria - Him | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 0:33 | comment | added | rodrigorgs | @Araucaria I understand that from the answer that in this case the inversion is mandatory. "when the auxiliary comes before the subject and the rest of the verb phrase follows the subject (inversion is usually necessary)" | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 0:15 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @rordigorgs No! because yours isn't a case of voluntary inversion as per the answers listed. It's mandatory - you have to do it in this situation. | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 23:33 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 8, 2015 at 10:59 | |||||
| Jan 7, 2015 at 22:43 | comment | added | rodrigorgs | No, in fact I didn't know that. I found the explanation at english.stackexchange.com/questions/62208/… because of Martin's comment. | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 22:29 | comment | added | anongoodnurse | You began your sentence with only. That necessitates the use of the did. But you seem to understand this. What, then, is your question? | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 21:54 | comment | added | Martin | If you begin a sentence with a negative adverbial clause, as per your example, the word order is inverted and the auxiliary that you would use for an interrogative is inserted. | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 21:44 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 7, 2015 at 22:36 | |||||
| Jan 7, 2015 at 21:44 | history | asked | rodrigorgs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |