Timeline for When can I use "Only do ..." vs. when must I use "Only ..." without the "do"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 28, 2015 at 15:51 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackEnglish/status/615185688112295936 | ||
| Jun 28, 2015 at 14:13 | history | reopened |
F.E. Araucaria - Him Mari-Lou A Tushar Raj Drew |
||
| Jun 28, 2015 at 11:23 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | Only two more vote-to-reopen needed. I mean, how would you do any research without already knowing the "rules"? I really do wonder sometimes... | |
| Jun 28, 2015 at 9:36 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jun 28, 2015 at 14:13 | |||||
| Jun 28, 2015 at 9:23 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 28, 2015 at 9:17 | comment | added | F.E. | Huh? How is the OP's question "off-topic"? | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 18:40 | history | closed |
Dan Bron Misti Edwin Ashworth Marv Mills ScotM |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 18:30 | comment | added | F.E. | Perhaps another somewhat similar example could be: "Only do boys shoot birds in the park". | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 18:26 | comment | added | F.E. | I think this is an interesting question! :) . . . In my idiolect, "Only do males have a y chromosome" is okay. Tentatively, I'm sorta seeing that example as a mix of the two versions: "Males do have a y chromosome" and "Only males have a y chromosome". It'll be interesting to see the argumentation for and against its grammaticality. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 17:59 | comment | added | Linda Lawson-Bruton | How about making is simpler by saying, "Males have the y chromosome.", | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 0:19 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | 'Only males' is inseparable (apart from modification of the noun); focus particles need to be next to the noun phrase they refer to. Only / just / even [certain unfortunate] males ...; Males alone ... . | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 0:01 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | @Araucaria The question asks 'when ...' in the first instance. Daniel's 'There are adverbs and adverbial expressions with a negative, restrictive or emphatic meaning, which are followed by inversion when placed first in a sentence.' addresses the issue well. 'Only then/after/later' mirror 'Only afterwards'. The prenominal usage of the restrictive focus particle 'Only males ...' does not trigger inversion any more than 'just' does. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 23:27 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @EdwinAshworth Not really, because that question and answer neither asks nor explains why inversion isn't needed when only modifies the Subject - and that is the nub of this question. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 21:56 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | possible duplicate of Inversion in "only [adverb] have they" | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 20:37 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @Anonym Yes, that's subject-dependent inversion though. This is subject-auxiliary inversion. The same type you find in questions :) | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 17:11 | answer | added | Araucaria - Him | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 16:38 | comment | added | Anonym | Inversion typically occurs after adverbs and adverbial phrases: here comes the bus; over tips the boat; only then did we realize his true intent; etc. In your example, only appears rather to be an adjective modifying males, which does not usually permit inversion. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 15:03 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @DanBron Inversion is a kinda sexy grammar topic for most grammar junkies. I think the people here will love it! | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 15:01 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @DanBron Does it? It makes my grammar ear twitch ... :) | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56 | history | edited | Dan Bron | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 67 characters in body
|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:55 | comment | added | Dan Bron | No problem about the edit. That's what I'm here for. I agree that in your actual example do works fine. I recommend you rework the question to ask about that situation, rather than the current example which everyone agrees is better without the do. Or, more broadly, you can ask where and when you could use this "do-structure" (whatever it's called), and where you can't. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:48 | comment | added | user27815 | I actually agree in the example I gave that 2) sounds better, but in the actual context I am using it does not sound right. Hence why I asked for the reasoning behind the answer. So I can try and understand what it is that is making my sentence sound strange! Might need to be reworded to avoid the problem. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:48 | history | edited | Dan Bron | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 665 characters in body
|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:43 | comment | added | Dan Bron | @user27815 You're a native speaker and you believe "Only do males have a y chromosome" flows better than "Only males have a y chromosome."? Well, no accounting for taste, I suppose ;) Let me try to edit your question for formatting, in order to attract helpful answers. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:31 | history | edited | user27815 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added full context.
|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:04 | comment | added | user27815 | I am a native English speaker ;) | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 11:04 | comment | added | Dan Bron | Before the additional motivation was added ("I know there are some situations where ...") I considered voting to close as well. This is a rare example of a user telling us why he's asking something that would otherwise be obvious to a native speaker. Though I still think this question, while it certainly requires deep English expertise and technical details to answer, would be better placed on ELL. For one thing, I think the community there has more practice answering this kind of question; for another, OP is clearly an ELL, and if he has further questions that site is the place for him. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 10:44 | history | edited | Araucaria - Him | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 10:30 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | Your very good question attracted some close-votes. I've given it a little edit to make the problem a bit clearer. If you don't like the edit, you can just roll it back (click on the "edited ***** ago" button, and press "rollback" at the top of the original version! | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 10:28 | history | edited | Araucaria - Him | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 215 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 10:24 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | Good question! Why is there no inversion here? | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 10:18 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 27, 2015 at 18:40 | |||||
| Jun 24, 2015 at 9:58 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 24, 2015 at 10:12 | |||||
| Jun 24, 2015 at 9:53 | history | asked | user27815 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |